royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Idylog - Nicolas Granon" <ngra...@idylog.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
Date Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:25:13 GMT
Maybe it is possible to have just one package, but different install scripts ? (full, swf only,
js only ?)
For people like me (app developers) it makes sense.
However, I'm not sure that a no-component install will be of interest for much people...

Nicolas Granon




> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 15:37
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> 
> Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> release packages.
> 
> For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they have no
> need to install anything Flash related. For someone only interested in
> outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all, they wouldn’t need
> much more than the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
> should probably have different compiler defaults.
> 
> The different release packages might have different names.
> 
> 
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> <kesslerconsulting@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead?  Like Royale SDK and skip
> the JS part?
> >
> >
> > -Mark K
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> >> names) and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> >> dictate if we want to target one or more outputs.
> >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> >> could output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> >>
> >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> >> solutions Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will
> come
> >> to read about Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
> >> don't want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that
> >> could make them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> >>
> >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> >> "JS", we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> >>
> >> That's my 2ctn
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> 'packaging'
> >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> >>> naming of the product(s) of this project.
> >>>
> >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think
> >>> is an excellent suggestion:
> >>>
> >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> >>> IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks migrating
> >>> from Apache Flex and another for folks not interested in SWF.  In
> >>> the packaging branch I have most of that working.
> >>>
> >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> >>> other one Royale or RoyaleJS.  The latter is considered by some
> >>> folks to mean "Royale for JS".  The package names would be
> >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and maybe
> >>> apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would definitely
> >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> markets."
> >>>
> >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> >>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> >>>
> >>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> product (e.g.
> >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> >>> name the current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
> confusing
> >>> to have a product with the same name as the project and then have
> >>> other products from the same project with totally different names.
> I
> >>> suggest we come up with a naming convention that will reflect the
> >>> functionality of the various products and their link to the
> project.
> >>> E.g. (off the top of my head, just to show what I mean): royale-as-
> js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> EdB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>>
> >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>>
> >>> T. 06-51952295
> >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> >>
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >> Director General
> >>
> >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >>
> >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >>
> >>
> >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> >>
> >>
> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> >> contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido
> este
> >> mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
> por
> >> esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
> >>
> >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> >> comunicamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
> responsable
> >> es CODEOSCOPIC S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar
> la
> >> prestación del servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> >> derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus
> >> datos dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11,
> >> 28036, Madrid con la documentación necesaria.



Mime
View raw message