royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Publishing royale to npm
Date Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:27:00 GMT
Okok, I thought we'll plan to go from 0.9 to 1.0, so in that case I see it
normal
Thanks Om

2017-11-12 10:14 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>:

> We’ve fixed a lot of things since 0.8.
>
> 0.9 does not need to jump to 1.0. We can have 0.10 (and 0.11…)
>
> I’d really like to streamline the release process so it’s painless enough
> to release every couple/few weeks.
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > about version number, I'll feel more happy with 0.8 than 0.9
> > My point is that we are getting a first release of Royale and is the same
> > that FlexJS 0.8 but with some new fixes and little things.
> > As well I can see many things to do to reach 1.0, and would be great to
> > have still an intermediate release 0.9
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-11-11 22:10 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That might work.  One question:  we want the same bits that were
> >> published
> >>> as 0.9.0-rc1 to become the final bits where you would do:
> >>>
> >>>  npm install -g apache-royale
> >>>
> >>> We aren't supposed to rebuild anything.  For Maven the same bits from
> >>> staging get copied to Maven central, for Ant/IDE the same bits are
> moved
> >>> (not copied) from dist/dev to dist/release.  So is it true that the RM
> >> can
> >>> publish the final bits by taking the same bits that were once published
> >>> via
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>  npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
> >>>
> >>> as the final release?  What does the RM to do make that happen?  Just:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  npm publish
> >>>
> >>> without any tag?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The rc1 would be in the /dev/ area of the dist site.  We will use a
> >> useMirror=false flag while attempting to download the specified sdk.
> This
> >> will bypass the mirror urls and directly load it from the dist site.
> >>
> >> For the nightlies, it would be similar, except we can use the direct
> url of
> >> the lastSuccessfulArtifact directory in Jenkins.
> >>
> >> When the release candidate artifacts get promoted to GA, they will be
> >> available via mirrors.  So, we will push a new release to npm with the
> new
> >> version number, which simply is new package.json file with the correct
> >> paths to the sdk artifacts.
> >>
> >> I plan to write a script called: publish-to-npm which can be invoked
> like
> >> this:
> >>
> >> ./publish-to-npm -- -nightly=true version=0.9.0
> >> ./publish-to-npm -- -rc=true version=0.9.0
> >> ./publish-to-npm -- -ga=true version=0.9.0
> >>
> >> The script will take care of setting up the correct values in
> package.json
> >> and will publish it to npmjs.org.
> >>
> >> The values would be:
> >> Nightly:
> >> "royale_path_binary": "
> >> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs-jsonly/
> >> lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/
> >> ",
> >> "royale_file_name": "apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip",
> >> "useMirror": false
> >>
> >> This will be published as: npm publish --tag nightly
> >>
> >> RC:
> >> "royale_path_binary": "
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/royale/sdk/0.9.0/rc1/",
> >> "royale_file_name": "apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip",
> >> "useMirror": false
> >>
> >> This will be published as: npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
> >>
> >> GA:
> >> "royale_path_binary": "/dist/release/royale/sdk/0.9.0/",
> >> "royale_file_name": "apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip",
> >> "useMirror": true
> >>
> >> This will be published as: npm publish
> >>
> >> When we move to the next version, we need to up the version number to
> the
> >> next one and push a nightly tag out.
> >> P.S.  All this assumes that there are no changes in the packaging logic.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Seems reasonable for the RM to have Node.js and npm installed.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 11/9/17, 6:28 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >> Muppirala"
> >>> <omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> For staging builds, we could do :
> >>>>
> >>>> Publish:
> >>>> npm publish --tag 0.9.0-rc1
> >>>> Install:
> >>>> npm install -g apache-royale@0.9.0-rc1
> >>>>
> >>>> For nightly builds
> >>>>
> >>>> Publish:
> >>>> npm publish --tag nightly
> >>>> Install:
> >>>> npm install -g apache-royale@nightly
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, if we want to integrate this as part of our release process, the
> >>>> Release Manager will need to have node.js and npm installed as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Om
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What would be great is, when we push artifacts to Maven staging repos
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> dist/dev, we also push something to wherever we need to push it so
> npm
> >>>>> works.  Then we say in the vote emails:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maven:  Use these staging 'coordinates' in your pom.xml
> >>>>> Ant/IDE users:  Get artifacts from dist.a.o/dev/royale
> >>>>> NPM users:  Run npm <whatever>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But these may not be the final bits so we want to make sure folks
> know
> >>>>> that and that we can push final bits later.  Then when the vote
> >> finally
> >>>>> passes, the RM pushes the Maven artifacts to Maven Central, the
> >> Ant/IDE
> >>>>> packages go to dist.a..o/release/royale and we do whatever is needed
> >> for
> >>>>> npm.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Similarly, for nightly builds, we tell Maven users to use -SNAPSHOT
> >>>>> versions, we tell Ant/IDE users to get it from apacheflexbuild.  What
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> we tell npm users?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/9/17, 2:37 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >>>>> Muppirala"
> >>>>> <omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can you remind me what the issues are with npm and nightly builds?
> >>>>>>> IOW, I
> >>>>>>> would think we would want to automate the generation of the HPM
> >>>>> release
> >>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>> it can go out with the regular Apache release artifacts and be
> >>>>> tested as
> >>>>>>> an RC by release voters.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think there is any issue.  Those who want to test out the
> >>>>> nightly
> >>>>>> via npm, need to a few special steps before they run npm install.
> >> Josh
> >>>>>> added that functionality a while ago.
> >>>>>> We are talking about the official release so we can push the package
> >>>>> out
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> the npm registry.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We could also publish alpha/beta releases to npm as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We already need to synchronize the generation and deployment of
> >> Maven
> >>>>>>> artifacts as well as the Ant/IDE artifacts.  Can we add NPM as
> >> well?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, we should be able to incorporate an npm publish command into
> our
> >>>>>> release scripts.  Do you know at what point in the whole release
> >>>>> process
> >>>>>> we
> >>>>>> will be able to update npm?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we dont change the installation steps, we would need the
> following
> >>>>>> pieces in the package.json file:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "org_apache_flex": {
> >>>>>> "flexjs_path_binary": "flex/flexjs/0.8.0/binaries/",
> >>>>>> "flexjs_file_name": "apache-flex-flexjs-0.8.0-bin.zip",
> >>>>>> "falcon_path_binary": "flex/falcon/0.8.0/binaries/",
> >>>>>> "falcon_file_name": "apache-flex-falconjx-0.8.0-bin.zip",
> >>>>>> "flash_player_global_url": "
> >>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.m
> >>>>>> acromedia.com%2Fget%2Fflashplayer%2Fupdaters%2F25%
> >>>>> 2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb85
> >>>>>> 038114e2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7
> >>>>>> C636458638974117812&sdata=Pf%2Fx4OLzd65wh8OEeXC8ALh3LE%
> >>>>> 2BBvUQGD6Ksts2pl14%
> >>>>>> 3D&reserved=0",
> >>>>>> "flash_player_global_file_name": "playerglobal25_0.swc",
> >>>>>> "adobe_air_url":
> >>>>>> "https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fairdownlo
> >>>>>> ad.adobe.com%2Fair%2Fwin%2Fdownload%2F25.0%2F&data=02%
> >>>>> 7C01%7C%7Cb85038114e
> >>>>>> 2f4ee32aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636458
> >>>>>> 638974117812&sdata=dVNDap4qsl6i7zZ1uL%
> 2FIiqKexCBpPPx86eqgDmslTPY%3D&
> >>>>> reserv
> >>>>>> ed=0",
> >>>>>> "adobe_air_file_name": "AdobeAIRSDK.zip",
> >>>>>> "player_version": "25.0",
> >>>>>> "swf_version": "36",
> >>>>>> "swf_object_url":
> >>>>>> "https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fgithub.co
> >>>>>> m%2Fswfobject%2Fswfobject%2Farchive%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >>>>> 7Cb85038114e2f4ee32
> >>>>>> aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364586389741
> >>>>>> 17812&sdata=gWVzkp0ByA8WM8SUI4pbDOKgs5omcr
> >>> VHBnIJsy2pfQU%3D&reserved=0",
> >>>>>> "swf_object_file_name": "2.2.zip",
> >>>>>> "flatui_url":
> >>>>>> "https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >>>>>> om%2Fdesignmodo%2FFlat-UI%2Farchive%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >>>>> 7Cb85038114e2f4ee32
> >>>>>> aba08d527c2918b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >>>>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364586389741
> >>>>>> 17812&sdata=nD8nezQSa9GnubwK8frZlJepgEY7zf
> >>> dCuMRqPbC3jqM%3D&reserved=0",
> >>>>>> "flatui_file_name": "2.2.2.zip"
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then, we up the version number and do a npm publish.  The release
> >>>>> manager
> >>>>>> would need to have the credentials for npmjs.org, but we could
> share
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>> with private@royale.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Om
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/9/17, 1:28 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> OK. You’re probably right.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:34 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >>>>>>> <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Did you reserve the name yet?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No I did not.  If we are going to be using apache-royale as the
> >>>>>>> package
> >>>>>>>>> name, we should be fine.
> >>>>>>>>> Unless you are worried someone else might claim it?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:25 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >>>>>>> <bigosmallm@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>>> <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Om,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the website content and want to know about NPM
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> update
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pages with real info.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> could you share your plans about releasing Apache Royale in
> >>>>> NPM?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose you can't still make this due to some final
> >> renaming?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know in order to remove this info if you think we'll
> >>>>> need
> >>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to get Royale on NPM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping to release the npm version right after we do the
> >>>>> first
> >>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>> of royale.  Does that work?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Om
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-30 19:57 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think apache-royals would be better, since avoids
> >> confusing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> people.
> >>>>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> came to this project for the first time, and try to search
> >> in
> >>>>>>> npm,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> find
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "royale", although this was the right and only package, I'll
> >>>>> be
> >>>>>>> ask
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there's the right one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> With apache-royale, there's no confusion problems ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-30 19:50 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <bigosmallm@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We always have option of using apache-royale as package
> >> name.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Harbs
> >>>>> <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s a shame that “royale” seems to already be taken on
> >> npm.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would vote for two packages:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. To install *everything* (i.e. swf, js, node, etc. and
> >>>>> future
> >>>>>>>>>>>> targets
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when/if we add them):
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm install apache-royale -g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. To install js-only:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm install apache-royale-js -g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we see a demand for further packages (i.e. compiler
> >>>>> only),
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> add
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them as additional packages later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 30, 2017, at 8:23 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bigosmallm@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, "npm install" downloads a tarball from npmjs.org.
> >> The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> package
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains the code we want others to use.  It also
> >> contains
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "package.json"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file which specify all its dependencies.  These
> >>>>> dependencies
> >>>>>>> (and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-dependencies) are all downloaded from npmjs.org as
> >>> part
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "npm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> install".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are options to run custom scripts before and after
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> npm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> install.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of FlexJS, we run a script afterwards that
> >>>>> simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> downloads
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-npmjs.org dependencies (royale sdk, fonts, flash
> >>>>> player,
> >>>>>>> air,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puts them in the correct places.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, our options are:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.  Publish two different packages on npmjs.org: jsonly
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> js+swf.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to figure out the names of these packages, since
> >> they
> >>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> unique
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifiers on npmjs's registry.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the command the users would run would look like:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm install royale-jsonly -g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm install royale-js-and-swf -g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.  Publish only the jsonly package.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the command the users would run would look like:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm install royale-jsonly -g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.  Possibly, we can figure out a way to optionally
> >>>>> download
> >>>>>>> swf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This way, by default the jsonly is downoaded and
> >> unzipped.
> >>>>>>> Then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (possibly) look at the args or have the user run another
> >>>>>>> command
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> downloads the swf support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the command the users would run would (possibly)
> >> look
> >>>>>>> like:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm install royale -- -include-swf-support -g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm install royale-jsonly -g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./update-royale-include-swf-support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In all three cases, we can definitely run a script that
> >>>>> alters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xml
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configs,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. to suit our needs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope that helps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Alex Harui
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain to us what our options are?
> >> Essentially,
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> JS-only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> package will be a subset of a package that can output
> >> both
> >>>>>>> SWF
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> JS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will probably have slightly different default settings
> >> in,
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frameworks/royale-config.xml file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is looking like we can create a zip package for
> >> JS-only
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Moonshine and VSCode, but to fully make it work in
> >>>>> Flash
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Builder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe some other IDEs) you will need to run a script of
> >>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes up some FB launch configurations that convert Flex
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Royale projects.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The current plan for a "FlexJS" package that has SWF
> >>>>> support
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that want use SWF for testing or as a migration step)
> >> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users unzip a package and run an Ant script to bring
> >> down
> >>>>>>> Adobe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies.  I'm thinking we won't use the Flex
> >>>>> installer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still working through why one of our users isn't
> >>>>> getting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completion working in FB and the answer there may affect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packaging
> >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know NPM well enough to have an opinion on, if
> >> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> distribute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages (flexjs-with-swf-support and js-only), whether
> >>>>> NPM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have two different packages or whether it is better to
> >>>>>>> structure
> >>>>>>>>>>>> NPM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> releases as js-only package and a swf-support-add-on
> >>>>> package.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also don't know if the NPM install should run a script
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those launch configs.  Maybe it is better to continue to
> >>>>>>> leave
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "FB
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> users have to run this additional Ant script" or
> >> something
> >>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure how important FB still is to our
> >>>>> ease-of-migration
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> story.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe showing us what folks would have to type on the
> >>>>> command
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help us form opinions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/30/17, 4:36 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on
> >> behalf
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rovira"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Om,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that would be great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we end having multiple products as Alex suggested, I
> >>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have as well multiple NPM installs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So for me is ok to sync products we deliver with NPM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installations
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flavors
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-30 10:58 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <yishayjobs@hotmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re likely to do most of the maintenance work, so
> >>>>> it’s
> >>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you…
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far as users go there are some users writing client
> >>>>> code in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AIR
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code in node (in fact I’m involved in such a project
> >>>>> right
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn’t make sweeping assumptions.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: omuppi1@gmail.com <omuppi1@gmail.com> on behalf
> >>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> OmPrakash
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:21:37 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Publishing royale to npm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Harbs
> >>>>>>> <harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not publish both versions?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like the js only is going to be just a zip
> >>>>> file.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy maintenance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The swf version has a bunch of dependencies to be
> >>>>>>> downloaded.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a big deal, just thinking out loud if we really
> >>>>> need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> publish
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different packages that might lead to confusion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to both, though.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:15 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bigosmallm@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was wondering if we should publish the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apache.royale-jsonly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> verson
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> npm instead of the full version with swf support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, users coming in vial npm would most
> >> likely
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> swf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts on this proposal?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Om
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >>> 7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> t4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Director General
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 <607%2022%2060%2005>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >> 7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881&
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sdata=JK22xVqobAGGnZ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b8laWESXHS3NA5nLdscBYTEHml7Pk%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.
> >>> com/?url=https%3A%2F%2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fna01.safelinks.protection.outlook&data=02%
> >>> 7C01%7C%7Cb6a2094e11dd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4e4c496708d527e2d4eb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> >>> cee1%7C0%7C0%7
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> C636458777567763335&sdata=VO2yh0RARZiWr4jYbPz8nfsyzyCG2O
> >>> a2KQ%2Blj
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2z%2FLIM%3D&reserved=0.
> >>>>> com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fww
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> w
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> codeoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >> 7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> >>>>>>> d535%7C
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>>>>>> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2BGs4UwGYO8XA6Ca3DU15tlSm3DZL3j4Jz9bXSVtkRu4%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Director General
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 <607%2022%2060%2005>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> odeoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >> 7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> >>>>>>> d535%7Cf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>>>>>> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=%2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BGs4UwGYO8XA6Ca3DU15tlSm3DZL3j4Jz9bXSVtkRu4%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fava
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> nt2.es%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> >>>>>>> d535%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>>>>>> 7C636458597162582230&sdata
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =Il0uAApioVX8s%2FGpLF6I7n3Z9RVE6lr%
> >>> 2F2DRXoDPhY7M%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fabou
> >>>>>>>>>>>> t
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>> me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >>> 7Cbbcc4f094aec46c8cac208d527b8
> >>>>>>> d535%7
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>>>>>> 7C636458597162582230&sdata=9
> >>>>>>>>>>>> %2FYyqi%2BYg77E%2FcoGt9naXIx24oJV3uK2fwbRB7Ef1
> >> Ec%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>


-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message