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 gosmith@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.208 as permitted sender)
From: Gordon Smith <gosmith@adobe.com>
To: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
CC: "flex-dev@incubator.apache.org" <flex-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:57:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Falcon location
Thread-Topic: Falcon location
Thread-Index: Ac16quLjpLjQzAp9T7ikavNYHTDuTA==
Message-ID: <4248FC50-2F78-4A17-8B8D-7AC28994895D@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAGgUee2+oN2J5dx5JOPe-psSUiaiE19RO7hwqxwHJjzQqNAxGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CC50118D.19E06%cframpto@adobe.com>
 <CAAd0WrZN6S9cdV7bKitrMxCFTBq1_=bmxRkkmbKDc7xTM6Mwng@mail.gmail.com>
 <149F8129B58B2D418508E63117D9C5419B3A5458B0@nambx05.corp.adobe.com>
 <CACK5iZdMqdoDoETQ=ci06Xs7STf7Zz5tsBk5NcYzFwkKYmye_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <149F8129B58B2D418508E63117D9C5419B3A54596B@nambx05.corp.adobe.com>
 <CACK5iZe=j2u895Zvxks=k3GZA=ZJfyqyw0oMKrqnx_M-+fL4Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DE761098-0015-4CD4-8414-FA28E554ECAE@adobe.com>
 <CACK5iZcp_nmqX4nAQN1j6ZTfzSXXzY2gR1KhAKwt4B09r1N0xA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACK5iZcp_nmqX4nAQN1j6ZTfzSXXzY2gR1KhAKwt4B09r1N0xA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

The thread was continued as "Rearrangement of ... Flex". Did you read that =
one too? In any case, I think the discussion can continue and perhaps you w=
ill persuade people. But my initial post explained why I don't think it bel=
ongs in 'modules', and no one else has wanted it there.

 - Gordon


Sent from my iPad

On Aug 14, 2012, at 10:52 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Gordon Smith <gosmith@adobe.com> wrote:
>=20
>> A large majority of people replying to this thread favor SDK, Falcon, TL=
F,
>> BlazeDS, etc. being quasi-independent sub projects within the overall Fl=
ex
>> project, so that's what Carol is planning for.
>>=20
>>=20
> I think we should discuss this further at the end of which a vote should =
be
> taken.  I don't think we are done discussing this yet to make this change=
.
>=20
> I dint see a strong reason for Falcon to be a top level project anywhere =
in
> this thread.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Om
>=20
>=20
>> Sent from my iPad
>>=20
>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 10:23 PM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Gordon Smith <gosmith@adobe.com> wrote=
:
>>>=20
>>>>> Falcon is a new version of the Actionscript compiler.
>>>>=20
>>>> Falcon is a reimplementation of mxmlc and compc. The AS support is ver=
y
>>>> good. (It will ship as FB 4.7.) The MXML support is incomplete but
>> Falcon
>>>> can compile the framework test file Checkinapp.mxml.
>>>>=20
>>>>> Does it support mxml as well?  Or would that be a separate top level
>>>> project?
>>>>=20
>>>> See above.
>>>>=20
>>>>> What do we call the compiler that is currently inside trunk?
>>>>=20
>>>> I call it "the legacy compiler".
>>>>=20
>>>>> If falcon gets a new top level project, shouldnt the current compiler
>>>> get its own top level project?
>>>>=20
>>>> I don't have an opinion on that. I hope the old compiler dies as soon =
as
>>>> possible.
>>>>=20
>>>>> Does Falcon work with exisiting flex sdk?
>>>>=20
>>>> It 's intended to eventually, but it's not yet ready to compile and ru=
n
>>>> all SDK SWCs and tests yet.
>>>>=20
>>>>> If I create new components inside incubator/flex/SDK/trunk/, should I
>>>> worry about who Falcon will work with it?  How would I set up my
>> project in
>>>> that case?
>>>>=20
>>>> Unless you want to contribute to Falcon, you shouldn't worry about it.
>> At
>>>> some point, if it becomes a suitable replacement for the legacy
>> compiler,
>>>> we will switch over and everything should just work the same.
>>>>=20
>>>>> Should I have copies of my new components in both
>>>> incubator/flex/SDK/trunk/ and incubator/flex/Falcon/trunk/ to run both
>>>> Mustella tests and Falcon's tests?
>>>>=20
>>>> No; incubator/flex/Falcon/trunk will be only for Falcon's Java code. N=
o
>>>> framework components will live there.
>>>>=20
>>>>> Does Falcon share any code with Falcon JS?
>>>>=20
>>>> Yes, it shares a front end (lexer/parser/symbol table). FalconJS and
>>>> Falcon have different back ends (code generators). FalconJS is not rea=
dy
>>>> for donation.
>>>>=20
>>>>> If yes, how might we want to change the repo structure if/when Falcon=
JS
>>>> is contributed to Apache Flex?
>>>>=20
>>>> We can figure that out when FalconJS is ready, but I think making it a
>>>> sibling of Falcon would be best. It could share Falcon's front end jus=
t
>> by
>>>> putting Falcon's JAR on its classpath.
>>>>=20
>>>> - Gordon
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>> Thanks Gordon!
>>>=20
>>> From what I read, it looks like Falcon is a new feature that will be
>> added
>>> to Apache Flex.   I believe it should be under
>> /flex/trunk/modules/falcon.
>>> And since it might be highly unstable, we should probably create a
>> 'falcon'
>>> branch to do this in.  Especially since you want to replace
>>> /flex/trunk/modules/asc and /flex/trunk/modules/compile with the falcon
>>> compiler.
>>>=20
>>> I think this structure follows what we have been discussing in the
>>> branching strategy threads.
>>>=20
>>> Elsewhere, you said:
>>>=20
>>> If Flex has independent subprojects like SDK, Falcon, TLF, etc., how
>> would
>>>> we tie them all together to do testing? With environment variables tha=
t
>> say
>>>> "use this branch of the SDK, this branch of Falcon, this branch of TLF=
,
>>>> etc."?
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Keeping it under /flex/trunk/modules/falcon would solve this problem to=
o,
>>> right?
>>>=20
>>> Eventually we should throwaway the /flex/trunk/modules/asc/ (legacy
>>> compiler) and rename falcon to asc as well.
>>>=20
>>> As I see it, Falcon is a codename for a new version of the compiler.  W=
e
>>> are mixing functional names like "asc" and "compiler" with codenames li=
ke
>>> "falcon".  What happens when we want to build a new version of
>> actionscript
>>> compiler after falcon?  We dont want to have that existing alongside wi=
th
>>> another codename as well.
>>>=20
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>=20