flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: [FLEX-JS] Streamlining the packaging
Date Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:12:29 GMT
I would like to avoid classifiers or sopes to switch cause I am already having trouble with
Maven x > 3.1 and the way currently the rsl scope is used. In Maven 3.1 they fixed a bug
we were relying on (Have to admit I never knew this was a bug).

I would strongly vote +1 for all in one SWCs


Von: Frank Wienberg <frank@jangaroo.net>
Gesendet: Montag, 10. November 2014 11:35
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FLEX-JS] Streamlining the packaging

>From WebJars and Jangaroo, I have some experience with Maven artifact
packaging of Web resources, and I'd recommend to follow Christofer's advice
and bundle everything into a single artifact.
Maven *does* allow a module to produce multiple artifacts (using different
"classifiers"), but this is rather intended for usages beyond building the
actual software, like documentation, sources etc.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de>

> ?Hi Alex and any others eventually working on FlexJS,
> I'm still struggling to streamline the Flexmojos integration. Currently it
> seems as if I was to compile a FlexJS application to SWF nothing has
> actually changed besides the artifacts that I need to reference. When it
> comes to JavaScript it's a lot trickier though. I couldn't see a 1-to-1
> match of SWF and JS resources. If it were to stay this way I think Maven
> FlexJS support will never be more than a hack causing a lot of traffic of
> "noob questions" on the lists.
> Would it be possible to package the JS parts in the same units as SWFs?
> I was thinking of one of these scenarios:
> - For each FlexJS swc, a matching directory for JS exists
> - For each FlexJS swc a zip containing the JS part exists
> - A FlexJS module consists of a SWF which contains the JS part as static
> resources (After all a SWC is a ZIP)
> The last option would definitely make things in Flexmojos 1000 times
> easier than the the others. My runner-up option would be the SWC + ZIP
> solution. Last would be the directory (I would simply zip that up when
> generating the Maven artifacts). It would be super-duper-awesome, if
> FalconJX would be able to work with JavaScript jars/zips directly without
> unpacking them, as this would be the cleanest solution.
> I think these changes would need to be done anyway if tool vendors like
> Jetbrains would start adding support for FlexJS natively as they would have
> to deal with the same problems.
> What do you think? I need at least a direction to finish my presentation
> ;-)
> Chris

View raw message