Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Hi,

I am working hard on getting to build flexmojos with the alternate fdk structure. I wasted about 6 hours trying to figure out a problem I was having and traced it back to Velo sort of creating a copy of each playerglobal and renaming it from playerglobal-{flash.version}.swc to playerglobal.swc and then to replace the dependency in the build ... I found a note that the file has to be called playerglobal.swc but it seems more recent flex compilers don't have any problems with playerglobal-{flash.version}.swc ... if this was an old requirement, I would like to simplify the dependency management and remove this renaming code ...

So is this now an obsolete requirement?

Chris

Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Gary Yang <fl...@gmail.com>]

Maybe a few warnings when 1) developer NOT using same version( between
playerglobal and target player); 2) developer explicitly declare
playerglobal as internal/external. -Gary





On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:

> Ähem ... actually I didn't want to treat it any different than the rest.
>
> First I should make clear:
> Flexmojos ("external") tells the compiler not to include the classes in
> the output, "internal" includes everything into the output. I think the
> Flex compiler has a different definition of this (Treating from the fact
> that playerglbal should be "internal" in the compiler). I guess "internal"
> in the compiler means that the classes are an "internal" part of the
> runtime and should not be included in the output. Please correct me if I'm
> wrong here.
>
> I can make any dependency "external" (Maven point of view) that means the
> library/application requires the runtime environment to provide this
> somehow differently. In case of the playerglobal the flashplayer natively
> implements and provides these ... I think the playerglobal is simply a
> dummy implementation of the Flashplayer API ... something like the "Servlet
> API" in Java web application, which you usually also set to "provided" and
> don't include to your application (Eventually renaming the Flexmojos scope
> to "provided" would be a good idea).
>
> So I am suggesting to include a check to Flexmojos to tell users to set
> the dependency to playerglobal / airglobal to "external/provided" which
> should result in the same behaviour as defining it as normal "compile"
> dependency and to handle it as "external" in the inside of the plugin and
> to remove any special handling.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Gary Yang <fl...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:03
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc
> having to be named exactly this way?
>
> Chris, You are right, I think it would be better to treat playerglobal
> specially, it is the NOT opensource core of Flash platform. -Gary
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is
> > only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
> > In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in
> > Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
> > So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens
> scope
> > "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
> >
> > If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the
> > runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
> > I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the
> package
> > and then interenally handling it differently.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> > Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc
> > having to be named exactly this way?
> >
> > I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
> > compiler sources. See
> > flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
> > flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
> > flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
> > compiler will just work incorrectly.
> >
> > On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> > > But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering
> > why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
> > > Seems to work nicely without :-)
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> > > Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having
> > to be named exactly this way?
> > >
> > > HI,
> > >
> > >> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
> > > As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called
> playerglobal.swc.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> >
> >
>

AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Ähem ... actually I didn't want to treat it any different than the rest. 

First I should make clear:
Flexmojos ("external") tells the compiler not to include the classes in the output, "internal" includes everything into the output. I think the Flex compiler has a different definition of this (Treating from the fact that playerglbal should be "internal" in the compiler). I guess "internal" in the compiler means that the classes are an "internal" part of the runtime and should not be included in the output. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

I can make any dependency "external" (Maven point of view) that means the library/application requires the runtime environment to provide this somehow differently. In case of the playerglobal the flashplayer natively implements and provides these ... I think the playerglobal is simply a dummy implementation of the Flashplayer API ... something like the "Servlet API" in Java web application, which you usually also set to "provided" and don't include to your application (Eventually renaming the Flexmojos scope to "provided" would be a good idea).

So I am suggesting to include a check to Flexmojos to tell users to set the dependency to playerglobal / airglobal to "external/provided" which should result in the same behaviour as defining it as normal "compile" dependency and to handle it as "external" in the inside of the plugin and to remove any special handling.

Chris



________________________________________
Von: Gary Yang <fl...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:03
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

Chris, You are right, I think it would be better to treat playerglobal
specially, it is the NOT opensource core of Flash platform. -Gary


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:

> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is
> only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in
> Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope
> "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>
> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the
> runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package
> and then interenally handling it differently.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc
> having to be named exactly this way?
>
> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
> compiler sources. See
> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>
> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> > But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering
> why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
> > Seems to work nicely without :-)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> > Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having
> to be named exactly this way?
> >
> > HI,
> >
> >> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
> > As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
>
>

Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Gary Yang <fl...@gmail.com>]

Chris, You are right, I think it would be better to treat playerglobal
specially, it is the NOT opensource core of Flash platform. -Gary


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:

> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is
> only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in
> Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope
> "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>
> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the
> runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package
> and then interenally handling it differently.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc
> having to be named exactly this way?
>
> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
> compiler sources. See
> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>
> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> > But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering
> why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
> > Seems to work nicely without :-)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> > Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having
> to be named exactly this way?
> >
> > HI,
> >
> >> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
> > As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
>
>

Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>]

Ok, I think this approach could be working. Probably you'll need to 
introduce a new special scope in order not to intersect with scopes used 
by people. Or may be instead of scope it would be possible to use some 
other classification feature. I guess only 
playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc contain Object class declaration in 
catalog.xml (<def id="Object" />) - probably this can be used as a 
'special' marker instead of maven scope.

On 02.06.2014 19:20, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Well I'm not assuming that "isInternal" isn't used and can be ignored, I'm just assuming that I can make a Source internal by providing the appropreate scopes in flexmojos and hence make the "copy the file around and internally rename" hack obsolete.
>
> But I'll be able to investigate this in more detail when I'm back home.
>
> Chris
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 17:10
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> I don't know.
> I'm sure Velo also did some simple testing before releasing Flexmojos
> 3.7.0. But the problem came in real-life complex multi-modular project
> [1] and he had to release 7.0.1.
> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal() method has 24 usages and I can't say
> for sure that all of them can be simply ignored without impact on
> compilation result.
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06459.html
>
> On 02.06.2014 18:26, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>> But why does it produce running applications if I remove the special handling? (I am using the legacy compiler)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
>> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:16
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>
>> You are right that playerglobal.swc has "external" dependency scope in
>> Maven terms (and -external-library-path in terms of Flex compiler
>> options). Custom SWCs also may have "external" scope configred by user
>> who wants to omit inclusion of classes from this custom SWC. From maven
>> point of view both playerglobal.swc and custom.swc look the same. But
>> compiler still needs to handle them differently.
>> So far I don't see a way of making existing legacy compiler work
>> correctly with renamed playerglobal.swc.
>>
>> On 02.06.2014 15:40, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>>> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
>>> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
>>> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>>>
>>> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
>>> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>>
>>> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
>>> compiler sources. See
>>> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
>>> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
>>> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
>>> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>>>
>>> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>>>> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
>>>> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
>>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>>>
>>>> HI,
>>>>
>>>>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
>>>> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Justin

AW: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Ok ... so I do actually get further when compiling without the playerglobal hack, but using the maven scope "external" instead.
Unfortunately it seems I'm only able to compile swcs with this. I do get swfs out of the build, but these are not runable. So I guess I will have to re-apply the hack.
But I would like to put my vote in to make this requirement obsolete in comming versions of the legacy and the falcon compiler (If this isn't allready obsolete in falcon anyway).

@Alex you remember us discussing a refactoring of the compiler and to split up the commandline-parsing and the actual compiling and providing an interface that I could initialize the configuration as an object and pass that in to the compiler? Is there any timeframe for this? Even if I guess I would implement support for this in the new plugin, it would be of great help now. I think it would be great to do this together with such a refactoring cause then I'd have something I could detect this requirement on ( if(compiler instanceof ConfigurableCompiler) { ... } else { do the rename hack } )

Chris


________________________________________
Von: Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 17:20
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: AW: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

Well I'm not assuming that "isInternal" isn't used and can be ignored, I'm just assuming that I can make a Source internal by providing the appropreate scopes in flexmojos and hence make the "copy the file around and internally rename" hack obsolete.

But I'll be able to investigate this in more detail when I'm back home.

Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 17:10
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

I don't know.
I'm sure Velo also did some simple testing before releasing Flexmojos
3.7.0. But the problem came in real-life complex multi-modular project
[1] and he had to release 7.0.1.
flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal() method has 24 usages and I can't say
for sure that all of them can be simply ignored without impact on
compilation result.

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06459.html

On 02.06.2014 18:26, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> But why does it produce running applications if I remove the special handling? (I am using the legacy compiler)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:16
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> You are right that playerglobal.swc has "external" dependency scope in
> Maven terms (and -external-library-path in terms of Flex compiler
> options). Custom SWCs also may have "external" scope configred by user
> who wants to omit inclusion of classes from this custom SWC. From maven
> point of view both playerglobal.swc and custom.swc look the same. But
> compiler still needs to handle them differently.
> So far I don't see a way of making existing legacy compiler work
> correctly with renamed playerglobal.swc.
>
> On 02.06.2014 15:40, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
>> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
>> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>>
>> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
>> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
>> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>
>> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
>> compiler sources. See
>> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
>> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
>> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
>> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>>
>> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>>> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
>>> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>>
>>> HI,
>>>
>>>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
>>> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin

AW: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Well I'm not assuming that "isInternal" isn't used and can be ignored, I'm just assuming that I can make a Source internal by providing the appropreate scopes in flexmojos and hence make the "copy the file around and internally rename" hack obsolete.

But I'll be able to investigate this in more detail when I'm back home.

Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 17:10
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

I don't know.
I'm sure Velo also did some simple testing before releasing Flexmojos
3.7.0. But the problem came in real-life complex multi-modular project
[1] and he had to release 7.0.1.
flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal() method has 24 usages and I can't say
for sure that all of them can be simply ignored without impact on
compilation result.

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06459.html

On 02.06.2014 18:26, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> But why does it produce running applications if I remove the special handling? (I am using the legacy compiler)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:16
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> You are right that playerglobal.swc has "external" dependency scope in
> Maven terms (and -external-library-path in terms of Flex compiler
> options). Custom SWCs also may have "external" scope configred by user
> who wants to omit inclusion of classes from this custom SWC. From maven
> point of view both playerglobal.swc and custom.swc look the same. But
> compiler still needs to handle them differently.
> So far I don't see a way of making existing legacy compiler work
> correctly with renamed playerglobal.swc.
>
> On 02.06.2014 15:40, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
>> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
>> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>>
>> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
>> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
>> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>
>> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
>> compiler sources. See
>> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
>> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
>> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
>> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>>
>> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>>> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
>>> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>>
>>> HI,
>>>
>>>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
>>> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin

Re: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>]

I don't know.
I'm sure Velo also did some simple testing before releasing Flexmojos 
3.7.0. But the problem came in real-life complex multi-modular project 
[1] and he had to release 7.0.1.
flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal() method has 24 usages and I can't say 
for sure that all of them can be simply ignored without impact on 
compilation result.

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06459.html

On 02.06.2014 18:26, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> But why does it produce running applications if I remove the special handling? (I am using the legacy compiler)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:16
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> You are right that playerglobal.swc has "external" dependency scope in
> Maven terms (and -external-library-path in terms of Flex compiler
> options). Custom SWCs also may have "external" scope configred by user
> who wants to omit inclusion of classes from this custom SWC. From maven
> point of view both playerglobal.swc and custom.swc look the same. But
> compiler still needs to handle them differently.
> So far I don't see a way of making existing legacy compiler work
> correctly with renamed playerglobal.swc.
>
> On 02.06.2014 15:40, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
>> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
>> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>>
>> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
>> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
>> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>
>> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
>> compiler sources. See
>> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
>> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
>> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
>> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>>
>> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>>> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
>>> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>>
>>> HI,
>>>
>>>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
>>> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin

AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

But why does it produce running applications if I remove the special handling? (I am using the legacy compiler)

Chris

________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:16
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

You are right that playerglobal.swc has "external" dependency scope in
Maven terms (and -external-library-path in terms of Flex compiler
options). Custom SWCs also may have "external" scope configred by user
who wants to omit inclusion of classes from this custom SWC. From maven
point of view both playerglobal.swc and custom.swc look the same. But
compiler still needs to handle them differently.
So far I don't see a way of making existing legacy compiler work
correctly with renamed playerglobal.swc.

On 02.06.2014 15:40, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>
> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
> compiler sources. See
> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>
> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
>> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>
>> HI,
>>
>>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
>> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin

Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>]

You are right that playerglobal.swc has "external" dependency scope in 
Maven terms (and -external-library-path in terms of Flex compiler 
options). Custom SWCs also may have "external" scope configred by user 
who wants to omit inclusion of classes from this custom SWC. From maven 
point of view both playerglobal.swc and custom.swc look the same. But 
compiler still needs to handle them differently.
So far I don't see a way of making existing legacy compiler work 
correctly with renamed playerglobal.swc.

On 02.06.2014 15:40, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
> In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external").
> So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
>
> If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and
> I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
> compiler sources. See
> flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
> flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
> flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
> compiler will just work incorrectly.
>
> On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
>> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>>
>> HI,
>>
>>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
>> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin

AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal".
In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external"). 
So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.

If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and 
I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently.

What do you think?

Chris


________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
compiler sources. See
flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
compiler will just work incorrectly.

On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>
> Chris
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> HI,
>
>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>]

That's just a bad package name. Code that relies on playerglobal.swc 
file name is still in use in Apache Flex SDK 4.12.

On 02.06.2014 13:15, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Well I'll do a little exploration ...
>
> But as you posted in one of your last posts, it looks as if this is comming from some flex2 compiler.
>
> Could It be possible that the problems of hard-coded names would only affect Flex 2 Applications built with Apache Flex? I mean 3.7.1 seems to have been released on 04. Jun 2010 at this time a first Flex 4 release has been out and I remember most people doing Flex 3  and a lot of people still doing Flex 2 development, Flex 4 was only done by the "Early Adopters" ;-)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:58
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> On 02.06.2014 12:41, Christofer Dutz wrote:
>> Well I am currently experimenting with the Flexmojos Build, but it seems the compiler is producing swfs and swcs correctly even if playerglobal is called playerglobal-13.0.swc ...
> Marvin thought so too with Flexmojos 3.7 release and had to release
> 3.7.1 update in few days :) See [1] for details. I don't have a sample
> to reproduce that problem, but probably user description will be enough.
>> If there are parts in the SDK that have this hard-coded name, would it be reasonable to refactor these?
> Rhetorical question :) Of course compiler without SWC name assumption is
> better. I didn't explore Falcon code, may be the problem is already
> solved there. But as for now, most people use legacy compiler.
>> I would certainly prefer to omit some maven hacks form the plugin. Especially when thinking about the plugin rewrite I have setup,
>>
>> Chris
> Alex
>
> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06489.html
>

AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Well I'll do a little exploration ... 

But as you posted in one of your last posts, it looks as if this is comming from some flex2 compiler. 

Could It be possible that the problems of hard-coded names would only affect Flex 2 Applications built with Apache Flex? I mean 3.7.1 seems to have been released on 04. Jun 2010 at this time a first Flex 4 release has been out and I remember most people doing Flex 3  and a lot of people still doing Flex 2 development, Flex 4 was only done by the "Early Adopters" ;-)

Chris

________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:58
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

On 02.06.2014 12:41, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Well I am currently experimenting with the Flexmojos Build, but it seems the compiler is producing swfs and swcs correctly even if playerglobal is called playerglobal-13.0.swc ...
Marvin thought so too with Flexmojos 3.7 release and had to release
3.7.1 update in few days :) See [1] for details. I don't have a sample
to reproduce that problem, but probably user description will be enough.
> If there are parts in the SDK that have this hard-coded name, would it be reasonable to refactor these?
Rhetorical question :) Of course compiler without SWC name assumption is
better. I didn't explore Falcon code, may be the problem is already
solved there. But as for now, most people use legacy compiler.
> I would certainly prefer to omit some maven hacks form the plugin. Especially when thinking about the plugin rewrite I have setup,
>
> Chris

Alex

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06489.html

Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>]

On 02.06.2014 12:41, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Well I am currently experimenting with the Flexmojos Build, but it seems the compiler is producing swfs and swcs correctly even if playerglobal is called playerglobal-13.0.swc ...
Marvin thought so too with Flexmojos 3.7 release and had to release 
3.7.1 update in few days :) See [1] for details. I don't have a sample 
to reproduce that problem, but probably user description will be enough.
> If there are parts in the SDK that have this hard-coded name, would it be reasonable to refactor these?
Rhetorical question :) Of course compiler without SWC name assumption is 
better. I didn't explore Falcon code, may be the problem is already 
solved there. But as for now, most people use legacy compiler.
> I would certainly prefer to omit some maven hacks form the plugin. Especially when thinking about the plugin rewrite I have setup,
>
> Chris

Alex

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06489.html

AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

Well I am currently experimenting with the Flexmojos Build, but it seems the compiler is producing swfs and swcs correctly even if playerglobal is called playerglobal-13.0.swc ...
If there are parts in the SDK that have this hard-coded name, would it be reasonable to refactor these? I would certainly prefer to omit some maven hacks form the plugin. Especially when thinking about the plugin rewrite I have setup,

Chris


________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the
compiler sources. See
flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in
flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of
flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc
compiler will just work incorrectly.

On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>
> Chris
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> HI,
>
>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>]

I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the 
compiler sources. See 
flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in 
flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of 
flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc 
compiler will just work incorrectly.

On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
> Seems to work nicely without :-)
>
> Chris
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
>
> HI,
>
>> So is this now an obsolete requirement?
> As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>]

But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ...
Seems to work nicely without :-)

Chris

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:justin@classsoftware.com] 
Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

HI,

> So is this now an obsolete requirement?

As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

HI,

> So is this now an obsolete requirement?

As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc.

Thanks,
Justin