Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of olegsivokon@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEWfVJmToKGhUHCPBY63QvBQChCVvunp74Vs3D0saho7X1YZhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEWfVJkGhWJ3oJD=bx4i_sztUVWDAYh15dKECf1QD_10Nx0xZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB91F676.102CD%cframpto@adobe.com>
	<CAEWfVJmToKGhUHCPBY63QvBQChCVvunp74Vs3D0saho7X1YZhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:38:37 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAJQBtg=+t_2nGXC5nPesqZjHdE+sL+Oe1EAXdyUFd=p-9j=YcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MENTOR] release package questions
From: Left Right <olegsivokon@gmail.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303ea7f0dcc29504bbe9fa09

--20cf303ea7f0dcc29504bbe9fa09
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I'm absolutely not an expert in this field, but here's what I was thinking
(sorry, if it doesn't make sense): What if it was possible to distribute
SDK and the framework as two separate packages? That would spare the
trouble of OSMF and TLF inclusion for the base (SDK) package? Additionally,
there's Tamarin that can produce playerglobal.swc (of course, it's not what
you want, but read on), I think it shouldn't be a technical problem to
create "interfaces" i.e. classes mirroring the actual Flash Player classes
with methods marked as "native" and compile an SWC from it using Tamarin -
that would require some reverse engineering + quite a bit of a handwork,
but from the first glance may be possible... Worst case, the binary package
may come with the "fake" sources that technically reflect the classes built
into Flash player. I think this is how Flash Develop used to be distributed
some time ago - they had all the AS3 classes written themselves, the
interfaces, that is.

Or does this sound hectic? :)

Best.

Oleg

--20cf303ea7f0dcc29504bbe9fa09--