incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Re: Falcon location
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:06:41 GMT

On 8/15/12 12:51 AM, "Om" <> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
>> On 8/14/12 10:51 PM, "Om" <> wrote:
>>> I dint see a strong reason for Falcon to be a top level project anywhere
>> in
>>> this thread.
>> I think we eventually want to break the compiler's ties to a specific
>> version of the SDK.  That gives it a better chance to be incorporated into
>> IDEs and used for other things like code models, and to be used as a front
>> end to FalconJS.
> MXML is a feature of the Flex SDK.  How can we ship Falcon without the Flex
> SDK?  Who would be using it?
It is the other way around.  We should have the flexibility to deliver
Falcon separately from the SDK.  The commercial tool vendors shouldn't have
to re-integrate Falcon every time we cut a new release of the SDK.  That is
why they cannot leverage MXMLC in the IDEs other than strictly as the SWF

> In the long term, it probably makes sense to move it a top level project,
> but in the short term having it outside of the current flex sdk folder
> structure will make it extremely difficult to work with.  No one has
> answered Gordon's question:
> If Flex has independent subprojects like SDK, Falcon, TLF, etc., how would
>> we tie them all together to do testing? With environment variables that say
>> "use this branch of the SDK, this branch of Falcon, this branch of TLF,
>> etc."?
> This sounds like a nightmare.  Scenarios like these are the reasons why
> having feature branches makes sense.  Isnt this what we all discussed in
> great detail in the "branching thread"?
Features of a single deliverable like the SDK.  But I think Falcon should be
thought of as a separate sub-project.  TLF as well.  Both Falcon and TLF can
be involved in SWFs without any other SDK code in it.

> Yet another issue I raised that has not been addressed:
> As I see it, Falcon is a codename for a new version of the compiler.  We
>> are mixing functional names like "asc" and "compiler" with codenames like
>> "falcon".  What happens when we want to build a new version of actionscript
>> compiler after falcon?  We dont want to have that existing alongside with
>> another codename as well.
I'm not understanding.  The proposed folder structure has "sub-project"
names at the top.  I don't see folders called 'asc' or 'compiler'
> Thanks,
> Om

Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.

View raw message