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: AW: [FLEX-JS] Streamlining the packaging
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:37:17 GMT
Hi Alex,

well I don't see a reason why FlashBuilder should have a problem with this.
After all you are setting the command line manually now too (If I'm not mistaken)

As far as I understood, currently for a Flash build, Falcon is used the normal way and it
therefore works in FB. When building a FlexJS build, you used to use a manual build configuration.

My suggestion would probably need a little modification cause in this case it wouldn't take
a js-root-path but look inside all the SWC files that is was provided with and use the resources
in there. I guess currently Falcon wouldn't be able to work that way. But with this option
I even guess that it should be possible to build a FlexJS application with the default build
configs.

Chris



________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 10. November 2014 21:58
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [FLEX-JS] Streamlining the packaging

On 11/10/14, 12:43 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>Yeah ... sorry for that ... I meant SWC containing the SWF, catalog and
>JS resources.
>This way we wouldn't have to switch any maven modules/artifacts for a JS
>build, but simply select FlexJS as compilerName in Flexmojos.

OK, so in this plan, the SWC would contain the library.swf and catalog.xml
and any other .css and assets, and even asdoc, as well as a tree of .js
files.

If you have the time to prove it doesn’t break Flash Builder and are
willing to pitch in on getting FalconJX to consume these SWCs it will help
make this the decision we go with.

-Alex


Mime
View raw message