You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev> on 2021/03/26 21:38:54 UTC
Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
start.
Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
`-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the
Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still
need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
wrote:
> Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I hadn't
> had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe SWC
> yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can now
> successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
>
> I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it possible
> to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
>
> What I still need to do:
>
> - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the
> docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I
> plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all
> compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> looking pretty solid.
> - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> Harman, if they'd prefer.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
>> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
>> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
>> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
>> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
>> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
>> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
>> version available as a backup.
>>
>> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
>> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
>> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
>> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
>> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
>> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
>>> the
>>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
>>> mavenizer.
>>>
>>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
>>> >)
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>>> playerglobal.swc
>>> > without running into license issues.
>>> >
>>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
>>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
>>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
>>> >
>>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
>>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
>>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
>>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>>> classes
>>> > and build a SWC from that.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Josh Tynjala
>>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
>>> > it’s
>>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
>>> > >
>>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Hi Harbs,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
>>> piece of
>>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
>>> > foundation
>>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to
>>> me
>>> > > like
>>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
>>> > representatives
>>> > > to
>>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
>>> > flex
>>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
>>> > know
>>> > > > the solution to this request
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
>>> it,
>>> > but
>>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
>>> > > escribió:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
>>> > > content
>>> > > >> debugger.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
>>> > > necessary.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
>>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> wrote:
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to
>>> any
>>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
>>> agreement
>>> > > you
>>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it
>>> did,
>>> > > wenn
>>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Carlos Rovira
>>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>
>>
Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF
target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>.
The .jar file downloaded from the CI server doesn't include the
playerglobal.swc dependency, so it seems like it isn't using
option-with-swf.
For Release Step 11 on the CI server (when royale-asjs is built with Maven)
option-with-swf is explicitly included in the Maven options, even though it
looks to me like that's supposed to be automatic too.
I'd say it doesn't hurt to try.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:29 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> royale-release profile should turn on option-with-swf.
>
> On 4/7/21, 10:24 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@bowlerhat.dev> wrote:
>
> I just logged into the CI server. I see that the configuration for
> Release
> Step 2 includes running Maven with the following options:
>
> -X
> --batch-mode
> -Proyale-release,apache-release
> release:prepare
> -Dtag=org.apache.royale.compiler-$releaseversion-rc$RCNUMBER
> -DpushChanges=false
> -Dusername=$GITUSERNAME
>
> Notice that -P does not include option-with-swf.
>
> I think that you need to update Release Step 2 on the CI server. Since
> releasesteps.xml includes option-with-swf, the CI server should too.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Running ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003
> -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> > succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this
> difference
> > in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different
> results,
> > which means we can’t release.
> >
> > The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is
> 3.6.3,
> > CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is
> 1.8.0_201).
> >
> > I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> > letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
> >
> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >
> > I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed
> in
> > flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> > option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> > option-with-swf on one of the computers.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect
> one
> > > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless
> maybe a
> > > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are
> both
> > > using option-with-swf?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <
> yishayjobs@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> > >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> > >>
> > >> <profile>
> > >> <id>option-with-swf</id>
> > >> <dependencies>
> > >> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running
> tests -->
> > >> <dependency>
> > >> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> > >> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> > >> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> > >> <type>swc</type>
> > >> <scope>runtime</scope>
> > >> </dependency>
> > >> </dependencies>
> > >> </profile>
> > >>
> > >> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> > >> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> > >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> > >>
> > >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on
> any .swc
> > >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might
> know, since
> > >> he
> > >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help
> anymore.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Josh Tynjala
> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <
> yishayjobs@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> > >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI
> server
> > >> > because of this line
> > >> >
> > >> > + - playerglobal
> com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> > >> >
> > >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> > >> >
> > >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> > around
> > >> > that?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks.
> > >> >
> > >> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> > >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> > >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> > removed
> > >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi Josh,
> > >> >
> > >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> > >> >
> > >> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> > >> > failonerror="true" >
> > >> > <arg value="clean" />
> > >> > <arg value="install" />
> > >> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> > >> > </exec>
> > >> >
> > >> > This results in
> > >> >
> > >> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> > >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> > >> >
> r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> > >> > [exec] [INFO]
> > >> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------<
> > org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> > >> > >-----------------
> > >> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler
> 0.9.8
> > >> > [6/13]
> > >> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> > >> > ]---------------------------------
> > >> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> > >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> > >> > [exec] [INFO]
> > >> > ===========================================================
> > >> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> > >> >
> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> > >> > .class]
> > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> > >> > [exec] SLF4J: See
> > >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slf4j.org%2Fcodes.html%23multiple_bindings&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=vIwcDmqTaV4hUORAldv5FLh6%2FTtBrmjbLvMXc5T0cHs%3D&reserved=0
> > >> > for an explanation.
> > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> > >> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> > >> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> > >> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the
> Adobe Flash
> > >> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash
> Player
> > >> > playerglobal.swc?
> > >> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server
> build,
> > >> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system
> property
> > >> > containing your system which is interpr
> > >> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> > >> > )
> > >> >
> > >> > Adding
> > >> >
> > >> > <arg
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> > >> > />
> > >> >
> > >> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit
> ca4f30bf
> > >> or
> > >> > if that’s specific to my system.
> > >> >
> > >> > Can you advise?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks.
> > >> >
> > >> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > >> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> > >> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > >> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> > removed
> > >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> > >> >
> > >> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
> > >> >
> > >> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've
> figured
> > >> out
> > >> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate
> playerglobal.swc
> > >> too.
> > >> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to
> royale-typedefs.
> > >> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc
> XML
> > files
> > >> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
> > >> >
> > >> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start
> using
> > >> these
> > >> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass.
> These
> > .swc
> > >> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but
> it's a
> > solid
> > >> > start.
> > >> >
> > >> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much
> everything.
> > >> You
> > >> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it
> will
> > >> build
> > >> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
> You
> > can
> > >> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
> > >> zip/tar.gz
> > >> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
> > >> >
> > >> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe
> artifacts is
> > if
> > >> you
> > >> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> > >> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The
> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> > >> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only
> airglobal.swc,
> > >> but
> > >> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still
> want
> > >> that to
> > >> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution
> without
> > Adobe
> > >> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
> > >> >
> > >> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
> > >> everywhere
> > >> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will
> build
> > all
> > >> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you
> have
> > >> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still
> use
> > Adobe
> > >> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who
> happens to
> > >> prefer
> > >> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it
> will use
> > our
> > >> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
> > >> >
> > >> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires
> env.AIR_HOME and
> > >> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite
> enough
> > time
> > >> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to
> > modify
> > >> the
> > >> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except
> you'll
> > >> still
> > >> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
> > >> >
> > >> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my
> work
> > is
> > >> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not
> prevent a
> > >> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still
> specify
> > >> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release
> > distribution
> > >> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Josh Tynjala
> > >> > Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <
> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> > >> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an
> > Apache-licensed
> > >> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the
> SWC file
> > >> using
> > >> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK,
> but I
> > >> > hadn't
> > >> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the
> official
> > >> Adobe
> > >> > SWC
> > >> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC
> didn't
> > >> work
> > >> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs
> where
> > I
> > >> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the
> docs. I
> > >> can
> > >> > now
> > >> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
> > >> (including
> > >> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> > >> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to
> make it
> > >> work
> > >> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or
> externc. After
> > >> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to
> make it
> > >> > possible
> > >> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What I still need to do:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc.
> AIR-only APIs
> > >> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> > >> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since
> building the
> > >> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly
> wrong
> > in
> > >> the
> > >> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other
> projects
> > >> too. I
> > >> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps
> using
> > Flex,
> > >> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of
> APIs. If
> > >> they
> > >> > all
> > >> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement
> will
> > be
> > >> > > looking pretty solid.
> > >> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> > >> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds.
> I'd
> > like
> > >> to
> > >> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs
> from
> > >> Adobe or
> > >> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Josh Tynjala
> > >> > > Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
> > >> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen
> project to
> > >> the
> > >> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can
> generate .as
> > >> > files
> > >> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for
> > playerglobal.swc.
> > >> > The
> > >> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> > >> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache
> license.
> > If
> > >> > Adobe
> > >> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website,
> we'll
> > >> have
> > >> > our
> > >> > >> version available as a backup.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can
> successfully
> > >> build
> > >> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any
> compiler
> > >> errors.
> > >> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc
> can be
> > used
> > >> > in an
> > >> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> > >> > airglobal.swc.
> > >> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue
> testing all
> > of
> > >> > that.
> > >> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> --
> > >> > >> Josh Tynjala
> > >> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <
> > >> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>> Hi Josh,
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external
> dependencies we
> > >> have
> > >> > >>> the
> > >> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or
> > manage
> > >> by
> > >> > >>> mavenizer.
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Thanks
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> > >> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> > >> > >>> >)
> > >> > >>> escribió:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> > >> > >>> playerglobal.swc
> > >> > >>> > without running into license issues.
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only
> the APIs,
> > >> and
> > >> > no
> > >> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the
> typedef/externs SWCs
> > >> that
> > >> > we
> > >> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> > >> > playerglobal.swc
> > >> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> > >> > information
> > >> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that
> someone
> > >> > could
> > >> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate
> AS3
> > stub
> > >> > >>> classes
> > >> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > --
> > >> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
> > >> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <
> harbs.lists@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real
> issues or
> > >> not.
> > >> > If
> > >> > >>> > it’s
> > >> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> > >> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>> > > wrote:
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and
> using
> > a
> > >> > >>> piece of
> > >> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be
> against
> > the
> > >> > >>> > foundation
> > >> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files,
> that's not
> > >> seem
> > >> > to
> > >> > >>> me
> > >> > >>> > > like
> > >> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with
> Adobe
> > >> > >>> > representatives
> > >> > >>> > > to
> > >> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player
> files only
> > >> for
> > >> > our
> > >> > >>> > flex
> > >> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue
> discussion
> > >> after
> > >> > we
> > >> > >>> > know
> > >> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you
> want I
> > can
> > >> do
> > >> > >>> it,
> > >> > >>> > but
> > >> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > > Thanks
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<
> > harbs.lists@gmail.com
> > >> >)
> > >> > >>> > > escribió:
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading
> playerglobal
> > or
> > >> > the
> > >> > >>> > > content
> > >> > >>> > > >> debugger.
> > >> > >>> > > >>
> > >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host
> these files
> > >> if
> > >> > >>> > > necessary.
> > >> > >>> > > >>
> > >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > >> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>> > > >>>
> > >> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload
> Adobe
> > >> stuff to
> > >> > >>> any
> > >> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The
> license
> > >> > >>> agreement
> > >> > >>> > > you
> > >> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that
> (at
> > least
> > >> it
> > >> > >>> did,
> > >> > >>> > > wenn
> > >> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt
> things
> > >> > changed)
> > >> > >>> > > >>
> > >> > >>> > > >>
> > >> > >>> > > >
> > >> > >>> > > > --
> > >> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > >> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > >> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > >> > >>> > > >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DY6wMFPjRNHcNLxKnS5uqbqABnfjhk8daxOVWjSh12g%3D&reserved=0
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> > >
> > >> > >>> >
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> --
> > >> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> > >> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > >> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> > >> > >>>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DY6wMFPjRNHcNLxKnS5uqbqABnfjhk8daxOVWjSh12g%3D&reserved=0
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF
target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now
on?))
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
royale-release profile should turn on option-with-swf.
On 4/7/21, 10:24 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <jo...@bowlerhat.dev> wrote:
I just logged into the CI server. I see that the configuration for Release
Step 2 includes running Maven with the following options:
-X
--batch-mode
-Proyale-release,apache-release
release:prepare
-Dtag=org.apache.royale.compiler-$releaseversion-rc$RCNUMBER
-DpushChanges=false
-Dusername=$GITUSERNAME
Notice that -P does not include option-with-swf.
I think that you need to update Release Step 2 on the CI server. Since
releasesteps.xml includes option-with-swf, the CI server should too.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Running ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> <profile>
> >> <id>option-with-swf</id>
> >> <dependencies>
> >> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
> >> <dependency>
> >> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> >> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> >> <type>swc</type>
> >> <scope>runtime</scope>
> >> </dependency>
> >> </dependencies>
> >> </profile>
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> >> > because of this line
> >> >
> >> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >> >
> >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >> >
> >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> around
> >> > that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >> >
> >> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> >> > failonerror="true" >
> >> > <arg value="clean" />
> >> > <arg value="install" />
> >> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> >> > </exec>
> >> >
> >> > This results in
> >> >
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >> >
> >>
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------<
> org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >> > >-----------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> >> > [6/13]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> >> > ]---------------------------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > ===========================================================
> >> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> >> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> >> > .class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: See
> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slf4j.org%2Fcodes.html%23multiple_bindings&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=vIwcDmqTaV4hUORAldv5FLh6%2FTtBrmjbLvMXc5T0cHs%3D&reserved=0
> >> > for an explanation.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> >> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> >> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> >> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> >> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> >> > playerglobal.swc?
> >> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> >> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> >> > containing your system which is interpr
> >> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> >> >
> >>
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > Adding
> >> >
> >> > <arg
> >> >
> >>
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> >> > />
> >> >
> >> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf
> >> or
> >> > if that’s specific to my system.
> >> >
> >> > Can you advise?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> >> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
> >> >
> >> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured
> >> out
> >> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc
> >> too.
> >> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> >> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML
> files
> >> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
> >> >
> >> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using
> >> these
> >> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These
> .swc
> >> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a
> solid
> >> > start.
> >> >
> >> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything.
> >> You
> >> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will
> >> build
> >> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You
> can
> >> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
> >> zip/tar.gz
> >> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
> >> >
> >> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is
> if
> >> you
> >> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> >> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> >> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc,
> >> but
> >> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want
> >> that to
> >> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without
> Adobe
> >> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
> >> >
> >> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
> >> >
> >> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
> >> everywhere
> >> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all
> >> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> >> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use
> Adobe
> >> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to
> >> prefer
> >> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use
> our
> >> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
> >> >
> >> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> >> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough
> time
> >> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to
> modify
> >> the
> >> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll
> >> still
> >> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
> >> >
> >> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work
> is
> >> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> >> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> >> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release
> distribution
> >> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an
> Apache-licensed
> >> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file
> >> using
> >> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> >> > hadn't
> >> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official
> >> Adobe
> >> > SWC
> >> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't
> >> work
> >> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where
> I
> >> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I
> >> can
> >> > now
> >> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
> >> (including
> >> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> >> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >> > >
> >> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it
> >> work
> >> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> >> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> >> > possible
> >> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >> > >
> >> > > What I still need to do:
> >> > >
> >> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> >> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> >> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> >> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong
> in
> >> the
> >> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects
> >> too. I
> >> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using
> Flex,
> >> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If
> >> they
> >> > all
> >> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will
> be
> >> > > looking pretty solid.
> >> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> >> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd
> like
> >> to
> >> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from
> >> Adobe or
> >> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Josh Tynjala
> >> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
> >> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to
> >> the
> >> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> >> > files
> >> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for
> playerglobal.swc.
> >> > The
> >> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license.
> If
> >> > Adobe
> >> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll
> >> have
> >> > our
> >> > >> version available as a backup.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully
> >> build
> >> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler
> >> errors.
> >> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be
> used
> >> > in an
> >> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> >> > airglobal.swc.
> >> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all
> of
> >> > that.
> >> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Josh Tynjala
> >> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <
> >> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi Josh,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we
> >> have
> >> > >>> the
> >> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or
> manage
> >> by
> >> > >>> mavenizer.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> >> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> > >>> >)
> >> > >>> escribió:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >> > >>> playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > without running into license issues.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs,
> >> and
> >> > no
> >> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs
> >> that
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> >> > playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> >> > information
> >> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> >> > could
> >> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3
> stub
> >> > >>> classes
> >> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > --
> >> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=B0wjSNGoZZKTB8k%2BJBAxHaPHsRXNpMWTooLEIutGnm4%3D&reserved=0>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or
> >> not.
> >> > If
> >> > >>> > it’s
> >> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> >> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using
> a
> >> > >>> piece of
> >> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against
> the
> >> > >>> > foundation
> >> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not
> >> seem
> >> > to
> >> > >>> me
> >> > >>> > > like
> >> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> >> > >>> > representatives
> >> > >>> > > to
> >> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only
> >> for
> >> > our
> >> > >>> > flex
> >> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion
> >> after
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > know
> >> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I
> can
> >> do
> >> > >>> it,
> >> > >>> > but
> >> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Thanks
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<
> harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >> >)
> >> > >>> > > escribió:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal
> or
> >> > the
> >> > >>> > > content
> >> > >>> > > >> debugger.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files
> >> if
> >> > >>> > > necessary.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> >> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >>>
> >> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe
> >> stuff to
> >> > >>> any
> >> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> >> > >>> agreement
> >> > >>> > > you
> >> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at
> least
> >> it
> >> > >>> did,
> >> > >>> > > wenn
> >> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> >> > changed)
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > --
> >> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DY6wMFPjRNHcNLxKnS5uqbqABnfjhk8daxOVWjSh12g%3D&reserved=0
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> --
> >> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=04%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf4650810c8834be7649108d8f9ea0e57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637534130955865526%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DY6wMFPjRNHcNLxKnS5uqbqABnfjhk8daxOVWjSh12g%3D&reserved=0
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF
target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>.
I just logged into the CI server. I see that the configuration for Release
Step 2 includes running Maven with the following options:
-X
--batch-mode
-Proyale-release,apache-release
release:prepare
-Dtag=org.apache.royale.compiler-$releaseversion-rc$RCNUMBER
-DpushChanges=false
-Dusername=$GITUSERNAME
Notice that -P does not include option-with-swf.
I think that you need to update Release Step 2 on the CI server. Since
releasesteps.xml includes option-with-swf, the CI server should too.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Running ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> <profile>
> >> <id>option-with-swf</id>
> >> <dependencies>
> >> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
> >> <dependency>
> >> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> >> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> >> <type>swc</type>
> >> <scope>runtime</scope>
> >> </dependency>
> >> </dependencies>
> >> </profile>
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> >> > because of this line
> >> >
> >> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >> >
> >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >> >
> >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> around
> >> > that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >> >
> >> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> >> > failonerror="true" >
> >> > <arg value="clean" />
> >> > <arg value="install" />
> >> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> >> > </exec>
> >> >
> >> > This results in
> >> >
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >> >
> >>
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------<
> org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >> > >-----------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> >> > [6/13]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> >> > ]---------------------------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > ===========================================================
> >> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> >> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> >> > .class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: See
> >> http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> >> > for an explanation.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> >> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> >> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> >> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> >> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> >> > playerglobal.swc?
> >> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> >> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> >> > containing your system which is interpr
> >> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> >> >
> >>
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > Adding
> >> >
> >> > <arg
> >> >
> >>
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> >> > />
> >> >
> >> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf
> >> or
> >> > if that’s specific to my system.
> >> >
> >> > Can you advise?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> >> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
> >> >
> >> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured
> >> out
> >> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc
> >> too.
> >> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> >> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML
> files
> >> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
> >> >
> >> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using
> >> these
> >> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These
> .swc
> >> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a
> solid
> >> > start.
> >> >
> >> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything.
> >> You
> >> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will
> >> build
> >> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You
> can
> >> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
> >> zip/tar.gz
> >> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
> >> >
> >> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is
> if
> >> you
> >> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> >> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> >> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc,
> >> but
> >> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want
> >> that to
> >> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without
> Adobe
> >> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
> >> >
> >> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
> >> >
> >> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
> >> everywhere
> >> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all
> >> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> >> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use
> Adobe
> >> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to
> >> prefer
> >> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use
> our
> >> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
> >> >
> >> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> >> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough
> time
> >> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to
> modify
> >> the
> >> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll
> >> still
> >> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
> >> >
> >> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work
> is
> >> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> >> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> >> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release
> distribution
> >> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an
> Apache-licensed
> >> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file
> >> using
> >> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> >> > hadn't
> >> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official
> >> Adobe
> >> > SWC
> >> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't
> >> work
> >> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where
> I
> >> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I
> >> can
> >> > now
> >> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
> >> (including
> >> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> >> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >> > >
> >> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it
> >> work
> >> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> >> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> >> > possible
> >> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >> > >
> >> > > What I still need to do:
> >> > >
> >> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> >> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> >> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> >> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong
> in
> >> the
> >> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects
> >> too. I
> >> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using
> Flex,
> >> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If
> >> they
> >> > all
> >> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will
> be
> >> > > looking pretty solid.
> >> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> >> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd
> like
> >> to
> >> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from
> >> Adobe or
> >> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Josh Tynjala
> >> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
> >> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to
> >> the
> >> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> >> > files
> >> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for
> playerglobal.swc.
> >> > The
> >> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license.
> If
> >> > Adobe
> >> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll
> >> have
> >> > our
> >> > >> version available as a backup.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully
> >> build
> >> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler
> >> errors.
> >> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be
> used
> >> > in an
> >> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> >> > airglobal.swc.
> >> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all
> of
> >> > that.
> >> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Josh Tynjala
> >> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <
> >> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi Josh,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we
> >> have
> >> > >>> the
> >> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or
> manage
> >> by
> >> > >>> mavenizer.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> >> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> > >>> >)
> >> > >>> escribió:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >> > >>> playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > without running into license issues.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs,
> >> and
> >> > no
> >> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs
> >> that
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> >> > playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> >> > information
> >> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> >> > could
> >> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3
> stub
> >> > >>> classes
> >> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > --
> >> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or
> >> not.
> >> > If
> >> > >>> > it’s
> >> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> >> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using
> a
> >> > >>> piece of
> >> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against
> the
> >> > >>> > foundation
> >> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not
> >> seem
> >> > to
> >> > >>> me
> >> > >>> > > like
> >> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> >> > >>> > representatives
> >> > >>> > > to
> >> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only
> >> for
> >> > our
> >> > >>> > flex
> >> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion
> >> after
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > know
> >> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I
> can
> >> do
> >> > >>> it,
> >> > >>> > but
> >> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Thanks
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<
> harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >> >)
> >> > >>> > > escribió:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal
> or
> >> > the
> >> > >>> > > content
> >> > >>> > > >> debugger.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files
> >> if
> >> > >>> > > necessary.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> >> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >>>
> >> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe
> >> stuff to
> >> > >>> any
> >> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> >> > >>> agreement
> >> > >>> > > you
> >> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at
> least
> >> it
> >> > >>> did,
> >> > >>> > > wenn
> >> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> >> > changed)
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > --
> >> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> --
> >> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
RE: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF
target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now
on?))
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
Thank you josh! Will upgrade CI server to 3.6.3.
From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 1:31 AM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))
I was able to find binaries for Maven 3.6.0, and I compared the output
between 3.6.0 and 3.6.3 (which is, coincidentally, the version that I have
installed on my computer too). Maven 3.6.0 omits playerglobal.swc from
flex-compiler-oem.jar's META-INF/DEPENDENCES and Maven 3.6.3 includes it.
So it appears that you either need to switch to Maven 3.6.0 locally, or you
need to upgrade Maven on the CI server.
If it helps, here's where I downloaded Maven 3.6.0:
https://archive.apache.org/dist/maven/maven-3/3.6.0/binaries/
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Running ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> <profile>
> >> <id>option-with-swf</id>
> >> <dependencies>
> >> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
> >> <dependency>
> >> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> >> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> >> <type>swc</type>
> >> <scope>runtime</scope>
> >> </dependency>
> >> </dependencies>
> >> </profile>
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> >> > because of this line
> >> >
> >> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >> >
> >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >> >
> >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> around
> >> > that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >> >
> >> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> >> > failonerror="true" >
> >> > <arg value="clean" />
> >> > <arg value="install" />
> >> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> >> > </exec>
> >> >
> >> > This results in
> >> >
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >> >
> >>
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------<
> org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >> > >-----------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> >> > [6/13]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> >> > ]---------------------------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > ===========================================================
> >> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> >> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> >> > .class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: See
> >> http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> >> > for an explanation.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> >> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> >> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> >> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> >> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> >> > playerglobal.swc?
> >> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> >> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> >> > containing your system which is interpr
> >> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> >> >
> >>
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > Adding
> >> >
> >> > <arg
> >> >
> >>
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> >> > />
> >> >
> >> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf
> >> or
> >> > if that’s specific to my system.
> >> >
> >> > Can you advise?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> >> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
> >> >
> >> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured
> >> out
> >> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc
> >> too.
> >> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> >> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML
> files
> >> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
> >> >
> >> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using
> >> these
> >> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These
> .swc
> >> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a
> solid
> >> > start.
> >> >
> >> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything.
> >> You
> >> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will
> >> build
> >> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You
> can
> >> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
> >> zip/tar.gz
> >> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
> >> >
> >> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is
> if
> >> you
> >> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> >> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> >> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc,
> >> but
> >> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want
> >> that to
> >> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without
> Adobe
> >> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
> >> >
> >> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
> >> >
> >> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
> >> everywhere
> >> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all
> >> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> >> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use
> Adobe
> >> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to
> >> prefer
> >> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use
> our
> >> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
> >> >
> >> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> >> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough
> time
> >> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to
> modify
> >> the
> >> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll
> >> still
> >> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
> >> >
> >> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work
> is
> >> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> >> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> >> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release
> distribution
> >> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an
> Apache-licensed
> >> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file
> >> using
> >> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> >> > hadn't
> >> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official
> >> Adobe
> >> > SWC
> >> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't
> >> work
> >> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where
> I
> >> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I
> >> can
> >> > now
> >> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
> >> (including
> >> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> >> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >> > >
> >> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it
> >> work
> >> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> >> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> >> > possible
> >> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >> > >
> >> > > What I still need to do:
> >> > >
> >> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> >> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> >> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> >> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong
> in
> >> the
> >> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects
> >> too. I
> >> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using
> Flex,
> >> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If
> >> they
> >> > all
> >> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will
> be
> >> > > looking pretty solid.
> >> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> >> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd
> like
> >> to
> >> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from
> >> Adobe or
> >> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Josh Tynjala
> >> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
> >> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to
> >> the
> >> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> >> > files
> >> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for
> playerglobal.swc.
> >> > The
> >> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license.
> If
> >> > Adobe
> >> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll
> >> have
> >> > our
> >> > >> version available as a backup.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully
> >> build
> >> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler
> >> errors.
> >> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be
> used
> >> > in an
> >> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> >> > airglobal.swc.
> >> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all
> of
> >> > that.
> >> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Josh Tynjala
> >> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <
> >> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi Josh,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we
> >> have
> >> > >>> the
> >> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or
> manage
> >> by
> >> > >>> mavenizer.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> >> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> > >>> >)
> >> > >>> escribió:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >> > >>> playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > without running into license issues.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs,
> >> and
> >> > no
> >> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs
> >> that
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> >> > playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> >> > information
> >> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> >> > could
> >> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3
> stub
> >> > >>> classes
> >> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > --
> >> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or
> >> not.
> >> > If
> >> > >>> > it’s
> >> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> >> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using
> a
> >> > >>> piece of
> >> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against
> the
> >> > >>> > foundation
> >> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not
> >> seem
> >> > to
> >> > >>> me
> >> > >>> > > like
> >> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> >> > >>> > representatives
> >> > >>> > > to
> >> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only
> >> for
> >> > our
> >> > >>> > flex
> >> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion
> >> after
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > know
> >> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I
> can
> >> do
> >> > >>> it,
> >> > >>> > but
> >> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Thanks
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<
> harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >> >)
> >> > >>> > > escribió:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal
> or
> >> > the
> >> > >>> > > content
> >> > >>> > > >> debugger.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files
> >> if
> >> > >>> > > necessary.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> >> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >>>
> >> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe
> >> stuff to
> >> > >>> any
> >> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> >> > >>> agreement
> >> > >>> > > you
> >> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at
> least
> >> it
> >> > >>> did,
> >> > >>> > > wenn
> >> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> >> > changed)
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > --
> >> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> --
> >> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF
target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?))
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>.
I was able to find binaries for Maven 3.6.0, and I compared the output
between 3.6.0 and 3.6.3 (which is, coincidentally, the version that I have
installed on my computer too). Maven 3.6.0 omits playerglobal.swc from
flex-compiler-oem.jar's META-INF/DEPENDENCES and Maven 3.6.3 includes it.
So it appears that you either need to switch to Maven 3.6.0 locally, or you
need to upgrade Maven on the CI server.
If it helps, here's where I downloaded Maven 3.6.0:
https://archive.apache.org/dist/maven/maven-3/3.6.0/binaries/
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Running ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8
> succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference
> in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results,
> which means we can’t release.
>
> The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3,
> CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
>
> I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and
> letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
> flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
> option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
> option-with-swf on one of the computers.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> > using option-with-swf?
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> >>
> >> <profile>
> >> <id>option-with-swf</id>
> >> <dependencies>
> >> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
> >> <dependency>
> >> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> >> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> >> <type>swc</type>
> >> <scope>runtime</scope>
> >> </dependency>
> >> </dependencies>
> >> </profile>
> >>
> >> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> >> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >>
> >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
> >> he
> >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> >> > because of this line
> >> >
> >> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >> >
> >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >> >
> >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get
> around
> >> > that?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Hi Josh,
> >> >
> >> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >> >
> >> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> >> > failonerror="true" >
> >> > <arg value="clean" />
> >> > <arg value="install" />
> >> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> >> > </exec>
> >> >
> >> > This results in
> >> >
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >> >
> >>
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------<
> org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >> > >-----------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> >> > [6/13]
> >> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> >> > ]---------------------------------
> >> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> >> > [exec] [INFO]
> >> > ===========================================================
> >> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> >> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> >> > .class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >> >
> >>
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: See
> >> http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> >> > for an explanation.
> >> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> >> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> >> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> >> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> >> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> >> > playerglobal.swc?
> >> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> >> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> >> > containing your system which is interpr
> >> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> >> >
> >>
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> >> > )
> >> >
> >> > Adding
> >> >
> >> > <arg
> >> >
> >>
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> >> > />
> >> >
> >> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf
> >> or
> >> > if that’s specific to my system.
> >> >
> >> > Can you advise?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> >> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe
> removed
> >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >> >
> >> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
> >> >
> >> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured
> >> out
> >> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc
> >> too.
> >> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> >> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML
> files
> >> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
> >> >
> >> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using
> >> these
> >> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These
> .swc
> >> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a
> solid
> >> > start.
> >> >
> >> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything.
> >> You
> >> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will
> >> build
> >> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You
> can
> >> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
> >> zip/tar.gz
> >> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
> >> >
> >> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is
> if
> >> you
> >> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> >> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> >> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc,
> >> but
> >> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want
> >> that to
> >> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without
> Adobe
> >> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
> >> >
> >> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
> >> >
> >> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
> >> everywhere
> >> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all
> >> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> >> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use
> Adobe
> >> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to
> >> prefer
> >> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use
> our
> >> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
> >> >
> >> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> >> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough
> time
> >> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to
> modify
> >> the
> >> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll
> >> still
> >> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
> >> >
> >> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work
> is
> >> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> >> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> >> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release
> distribution
> >> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an
> Apache-licensed
> >> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file
> >> using
> >> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> >> > hadn't
> >> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official
> >> Adobe
> >> > SWC
> >> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't
> >> work
> >> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where
> I
> >> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I
> >> can
> >> > now
> >> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
> >> (including
> >> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> >> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >> > >
> >> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it
> >> work
> >> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> >> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> >> > possible
> >> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >> > >
> >> > > What I still need to do:
> >> > >
> >> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> >> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> >> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> >> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong
> in
> >> the
> >> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects
> >> too. I
> >> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using
> Flex,
> >> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If
> >> they
> >> > all
> >> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will
> be
> >> > > looking pretty solid.
> >> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> >> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd
> like
> >> to
> >> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from
> >> Adobe or
> >> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Josh Tynjala
> >> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
> >> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to
> >> the
> >> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> >> > files
> >> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for
> playerglobal.swc.
> >> > The
> >> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license.
> If
> >> > Adobe
> >> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll
> >> have
> >> > our
> >> > >> version available as a backup.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully
> >> build
> >> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler
> >> errors.
> >> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be
> used
> >> > in an
> >> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> >> > airglobal.swc.
> >> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all
> of
> >> > that.
> >> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Josh Tynjala
> >> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <
> >> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> Hi Josh,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we
> >> have
> >> > >>> the
> >> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or
> manage
> >> by
> >> > >>> mavenizer.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Thanks
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> >> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >> > >>> >)
> >> > >>> escribió:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >> > >>> playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > without running into license issues.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs,
> >> and
> >> > no
> >> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs
> >> that
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> >> > playerglobal.swc
> >> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> >> > information
> >> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> >> > could
> >> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3
> stub
> >> > >>> classes
> >> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > --
> >> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
> >> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or
> >> not.
> >> > If
> >> > >>> > it’s
> >> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> >> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > > wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using
> a
> >> > >>> piece of
> >> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against
> the
> >> > >>> > foundation
> >> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not
> >> seem
> >> > to
> >> > >>> me
> >> > >>> > > like
> >> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> >> > >>> > representatives
> >> > >>> > > to
> >> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only
> >> for
> >> > our
> >> > >>> > flex
> >> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion
> >> after
> >> > we
> >> > >>> > know
> >> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I
> can
> >> do
> >> > >>> it,
> >> > >>> > but
> >> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > Thanks
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<
> harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >> >)
> >> > >>> > > escribió:
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal
> or
> >> > the
> >> > >>> > > content
> >> > >>> > > >> debugger.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files
> >> if
> >> > >>> > > necessary.
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> >> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > >> wrote:
> >> > >>> > > >>>
> >> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe
> >> stuff to
> >> > >>> any
> >> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> >> > >>> agreement
> >> > >>> > > you
> >> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at
> least
> >> it
> >> > >>> did,
> >> > >>> > > wenn
> >> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> >> > changed)
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >>
> >> > >>> > > >
> >> > >>> > > > --
> >> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> > >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> --
> >> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> >> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >> > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
META-INF/DEPENDENCIES Diff (was RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF
target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now
on?))
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
Running ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8 succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results, which means we can’t release.
The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3, CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201).
I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and letting mvn download it but it’s the same result.
From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
option-with-swf on one of the computers.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
wrote:
> Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> using option-with-swf?
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
>> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>>
>> <profile>
>> <id>option-with-swf</id>
>> <dependencies>
>> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
>> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
>> <version>${flash.version}</version>
>> <type>swc</type>
>> <scope>runtime</scope>
>> </dependency>
>> </dependencies>
>> </profile>
>>
>> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
>> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
>> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>>
>> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
>> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
>> he
>> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
>> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
>> > because of this line
>> >
>> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>> >
>> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>> >
>> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
>> > that?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
>> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
>> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
>> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>> >
>> > Hi Josh,
>> >
>> > I’m running release ant script which has
>> >
>> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
>> > failonerror="true" >
>> > <arg value="clean" />
>> > <arg value="install" />
>> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
>> > </exec>
>> >
>> > This results in
>> >
>> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
>> >
>> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
>> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> > [exec] [INFO]
>> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
>> > >-----------------
>> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
>> > [6/13]
>> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
>> > ]---------------------------------
>> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
>> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>> > [exec] [INFO]
>> > ===========================================================
>> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
>> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
>> > .class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: See
>> http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
>> > for an explanation.
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
>> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
>> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
>> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
>> > playerglobal.swc?
>> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
>> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
>> > containing your system which is interpr
>> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
>> >
>> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
>> > )
>> >
>> > Adding
>> >
>> > <arg
>> >
>> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
>> > />
>> >
>> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf
>> or
>> > if that’s specific to my system.
>> >
>> > Can you advise?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
>> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
>> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>> >
>> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>> >
>> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured
>> out
>> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc
>> too.
>> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
>> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
>> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>> >
>> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using
>> these
>> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
>> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
>> > start.
>> >
>> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything.
>> You
>> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will
>> build
>> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
>> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
>> zip/tar.gz
>> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
>> >
>> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if
>> you
>> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
>> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
>> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc,
>> but
>> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want
>> that to
>> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
>> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
>> >
>> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
>> >
>> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
>> everywhere
>> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
>> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
>> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
>> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to
>> prefer
>> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
>> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
>> >
>> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
>> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
>> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify
>> the
>> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll
>> still
>> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
>> >
>> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
>> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
>> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
>> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
>> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Josh Tynjala
>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
>> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file
>> using
>> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
>> > hadn't
>> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official
>> Adobe
>> > SWC
>> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't
>> work
>> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
>> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I
>> can
>> > now
>> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
>> (including
>> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
>> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
>> > >
>> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it
>> work
>> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
>> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
>> > possible
>> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
>> > >
>> > > What I still need to do:
>> > >
>> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
>> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
>> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
>> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in
>> the
>> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects
>> too. I
>> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
>> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If
>> they
>> > all
>> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
>> > > looking pretty solid.
>> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
>> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like
>> to
>> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from
>> Adobe or
>> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Josh Tynjala
>> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
>> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to
>> the
>> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
>> > files
>> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc.
>> > The
>> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
>> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
>> > Adobe
>> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll
>> have
>> > our
>> > >> version available as a backup.
>> > >>
>> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully
>> build
>> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler
>> errors.
>> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used
>> > in an
>> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
>> > airglobal.swc.
>> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
>> > that.
>> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Josh Tynjala
>> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <
>> carlosrovira@apache.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi Josh,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we
>> have
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage
>> by
>> > >>> mavenizer.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
>> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
>> > >>> >)
>> > >>> escribió:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>> > >>> playerglobal.swc
>> > >>> > without running into license issues.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs,
>> and
>> > no
>> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs
>> that
>> > we
>> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
>> > playerglobal.swc
>> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
>> > information
>> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
>> > could
>> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>> > >>> classes
>> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > --
>> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
>> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or
>> not.
>> > If
>> > >>> > it’s
>> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
>> > carlosrovira@apache.org
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > wrote:
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
>> > >>> piece of
>> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
>> > >>> > foundation
>> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not
>> seem
>> > to
>> > >>> me
>> > >>> > > like
>> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
>> > >>> > representatives
>> > >>> > > to
>> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only
>> for
>> > our
>> > >>> > flex
>> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion
>> after
>> > we
>> > >>> > know
>> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can
>> do
>> > >>> it,
>> > >>> > but
>> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > Thanks
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<harbs.lists@gmail.com
>> >)
>> > >>> > > escribió:
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or
>> > the
>> > >>> > > content
>> > >>> > > >> debugger.
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files
>> if
>> > >>> > > necessary.
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
>> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >> wrote:
>> > >>> > > >>>
>> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe
>> stuff to
>> > >>> any
>> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
>> > >>> agreement
>> > >>> > > you
>> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least
>> it
>> > >>> did,
>> > >>> > > wenn
>> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
>> > changed)
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > --
>> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
>> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
>> > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --
>> > >>> Carlos Rovira
>> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
>> > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>.
I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in
flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P
option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P
option-with-swf on one of the computers.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
wrote:
> Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
> computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
> slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
> using option-with-swf?
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
>> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>>
>> <profile>
>> <id>option-with-swf</id>
>> <dependencies>
>> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
>> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
>> <version>${flash.version}</version>
>> <type>swc</type>
>> <scope>runtime</scope>
>> </dependency>
>> </dependencies>
>> </profile>
>>
>> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
>> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
>> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>>
>> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
>> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since
>> he
>> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
>> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
>> > because of this line
>> >
>> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>> >
>> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>> >
>> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
>> > that?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
>> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
>> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
>> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>> >
>> > Hi Josh,
>> >
>> > I’m running release ant script which has
>> >
>> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
>> > failonerror="true" >
>> > <arg value="clean" />
>> > <arg value="install" />
>> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
>> > </exec>
>> >
>> > This results in
>> >
>> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
>> >
>> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
>> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
>> > [exec] [INFO]
>> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
>> > >-----------------
>> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
>> > [6/13]
>> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
>> > ]---------------------------------
>> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
>> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
>> > [exec] [INFO]
>> > ===========================================================
>> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
>> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
>> > .class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
>> >
>> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
>> > [exec] SLF4J: See
>> http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
>> > for an explanation.
>> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
>> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
>> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
>> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
>> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
>> > playerglobal.swc?
>> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
>> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
>> > containing your system which is interpr
>> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
>> >
>> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
>> > )
>> >
>> > Adding
>> >
>> > <arg
>> >
>> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
>> > />
>> >
>> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf
>> or
>> > if that’s specific to my system.
>> >
>> > Can you advise?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
>> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
>> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
>> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>> >
>> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>> >
>> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured
>> out
>> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc
>> too.
>> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
>> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
>> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>> >
>> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using
>> these
>> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
>> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
>> > start.
>> >
>> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything.
>> You
>> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will
>> build
>> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
>> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
>> zip/tar.gz
>> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
>> >
>> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if
>> you
>> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
>> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
>> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc,
>> but
>> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want
>> that to
>> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
>> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
>> >
>> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
>> >
>> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
>> everywhere
>> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
>> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
>> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
>> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to
>> prefer
>> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
>> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
>> >
>> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
>> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
>> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify
>> the
>> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll
>> still
>> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
>> >
>> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
>> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
>> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
>> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
>> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Josh Tynjala
>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
>> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file
>> using
>> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
>> > hadn't
>> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official
>> Adobe
>> > SWC
>> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't
>> work
>> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
>> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I
>> can
>> > now
>> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
>> (including
>> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
>> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
>> > >
>> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it
>> work
>> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
>> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
>> > possible
>> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
>> > >
>> > > What I still need to do:
>> > >
>> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
>> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
>> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
>> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in
>> the
>> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects
>> too. I
>> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
>> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If
>> they
>> > all
>> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
>> > > looking pretty solid.
>> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
>> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like
>> to
>> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from
>> Adobe or
>> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Josh Tynjala
>> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
>> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to
>> the
>> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
>> > files
>> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc.
>> > The
>> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
>> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
>> > Adobe
>> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll
>> have
>> > our
>> > >> version available as a backup.
>> > >>
>> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully
>> build
>> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler
>> errors.
>> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used
>> > in an
>> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
>> > airglobal.swc.
>> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
>> > that.
>> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Josh Tynjala
>> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <
>> carlosrovira@apache.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi Josh,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we
>> have
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage
>> by
>> > >>> mavenizer.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
>> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
>> > >>> >)
>> > >>> escribió:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>> > >>> playerglobal.swc
>> > >>> > without running into license issues.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs,
>> and
>> > no
>> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs
>> that
>> > we
>> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
>> > playerglobal.swc
>> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
>> > information
>> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
>> > could
>> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>> > >>> classes
>> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > --
>> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
>> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or
>> not.
>> > If
>> > >>> > it’s
>> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
>> > carlosrovira@apache.org
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > > wrote:
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
>> > >>> piece of
>> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
>> > >>> > foundation
>> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not
>> seem
>> > to
>> > >>> me
>> > >>> > > like
>> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
>> > >>> > representatives
>> > >>> > > to
>> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only
>> for
>> > our
>> > >>> > flex
>> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion
>> after
>> > we
>> > >>> > know
>> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can
>> do
>> > >>> it,
>> > >>> > but
>> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > Thanks
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<harbs.lists@gmail.com
>> >)
>> > >>> > > escribió:
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or
>> > the
>> > >>> > > content
>> > >>> > > >> debugger.
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files
>> if
>> > >>> > > necessary.
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
>> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > >> wrote:
>> > >>> > > >>>
>> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe
>> stuff to
>> > >>> any
>> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
>> > >>> agreement
>> > >>> > > you
>> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least
>> it
>> > >>> did,
>> > >>> > > wenn
>> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
>> > changed)
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >>
>> > >>> > > >
>> > >>> > > > --
>> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
>> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
>> > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> > >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> --
>> > >>> Carlos Rovira
>> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
>> > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>.
Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one
computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a
slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both
using option-with-swf?
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in
> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>
> <profile>
> <id>option-with-swf</id>
> <dependencies>
> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
> <dependency>
> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> <type>swc</type>
> <scope>runtime</scope>
> </dependency>
> </dependencies>
> </profile>
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he
> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> > because of this line
> >
> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
> >
> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
> >
> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
> > that?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > I’m running release ant script which has
> >
> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> > failonerror="true" >
> > <arg value="clean" />
> > <arg value="install" />
> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> > </exec>
> >
> > This results in
> >
> > [exec] [INFO] Installing
> >
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> > [exec] [INFO]
> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> > >-----------------
> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> > [6/13]
> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> > ]---------------------------------
> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> > [exec] [INFO]
> > ===========================================================
> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> > .class]
> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> >
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> > [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> > for an explanation.
> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> > playerglobal.swc?
> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> > containing your system which is interpr
> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> >
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> > )
> >
> > Adding
> >
> > <arg
> >
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> > />
> >
> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> > if that’s specific to my system.
> >
> > Can you advise?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> > To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
> >
> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
> >
> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured
> out
> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc
> too.
> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
> >
> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
> > start.
> >
> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a
> zip/tar.gz
> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
> >
> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if
> you
> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that
> to
> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
> >
> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
> >
> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not
> everywhere
> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to
> prefer
> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
> >
> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify
> the
> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll
> still
> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
> >
> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file
> using
> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> > hadn't
> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe
> > SWC
> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't
> work
> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can
> > now
> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework
> (including
> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> > >
> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it
> work
> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> > possible
> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> > >
> > > What I still need to do:
> > >
> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in
> the
> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects
> too. I
> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they
> > all
> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> > > looking pretty solid.
> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like
> to
> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe
> or
> > > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> > files
> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc.
> > The
> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
> > Adobe
> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have
> > our
> > >> version available as a backup.
> > >>
> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler
> errors.
> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used
> > in an
> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> > airglobal.swc.
> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
> > that.
> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Josh Tynjala
> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Josh,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we
> have
> > >>> the
> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage
> by
> > >>> mavenizer.
> > >>>
> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> > joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> > >>> >)
> > >>> escribió:
> > >>>
> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> > >>> playerglobal.swc
> > >>> > without running into license issues.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs,
> and
> > no
> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs
> that
> > we
> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> > playerglobal.swc
> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> > information
> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> > could
> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> > >>> classes
> > >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > --
> > >>> > Josh Tynjala
> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or
> not.
> > If
> > >>> > it’s
> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
> > >>> piece of
> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> > >>> > foundation
> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem
> > to
> > >>> me
> > >>> > > like
> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> > >>> > representatives
> > >>> > > to
> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for
> > our
> > >>> > flex
> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion
> after
> > we
> > >>> > know
> > >>> > > > the solution to this request
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can
> do
> > >>> it,
> > >>> > but
> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Thanks
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<harbs.lists@gmail.com
> >)
> > >>> > > escribió:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or
> > the
> > >>> > > content
> > >>> > > >> debugger.
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> > >>> > > necessary.
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> > >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >> wrote:
> > >>> > > >>>
> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff
> to
> > >>> any
> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> > >>> agreement
> > >>> > > you
> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least
> it
> > >>> did,
> > >>> > > wenn
> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> > changed)
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >>
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > --
> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Carlos Rovira
> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
Not sure if this is related, but I found this in royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
<profile>
<id>option-with-swf</id>
<dependencies>
<!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests -->
<dependency>
<groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
<artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
<version>${flash.version}</version>
<type>swc</type>
<scope>runtime</scope>
</dependency>
</dependencies>
</profile>
From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he
did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> because of this line
>
> + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>
> In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>
> which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
> that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> I’m running release ant script which has
>
> <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> failonerror="true" >
> <arg value="clean" />
> <arg value="install" />
> <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> </exec>
>
> This results in
>
> [exec] [INFO] Installing
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> [exec] [INFO]
> [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >-----------------
> [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> [6/13]
> [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> ]---------------------------------
> [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> [exec] [INFO]
> ===========================================================
> [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> .class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> for an explanation.
> [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc?
> [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> containing your system which is interpr
> eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> )
>
> Adding
>
> <arg
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> />
>
> Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> if that’s specific to my system.
>
> Can you advise?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>
> Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
> how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
> I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
> that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>
> I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
> new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
> files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
> start.
>
> Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
> can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
> also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
> distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
>
> The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
> specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
> also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
> be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
> stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
>
> I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
>
> Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
> yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
> framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
> artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
> that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
> airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
>
> Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
> this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the
> Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still
> need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
>
> I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
> still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
> build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> hadn't
> > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe
> SWC
> > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can
> now
> > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >
> > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> possible
> > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >
> > What I still need to do:
> >
> > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the
> > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I
> > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they
> all
> > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> > looking pretty solid.
> > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> files
> >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc.
> The
> >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
> Adobe
> >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have
> our
> >> version available as a backup.
> >>
> >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
> >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
> >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used
> in an
> >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> airglobal.swc.
> >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
> that.
> >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Josh,
> >>>
> >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
> >>> the
> >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
> >>> mavenizer.
> >>>
> >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >>> >)
> >>> escribió:
> >>>
> >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >>> playerglobal.swc
> >>> > without running into license issues.
> >>> >
> >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and
> no
> >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that
> we
> >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >>> >
> >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> playerglobal.swc
> >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> information
> >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> could
> >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> >>> classes
> >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Josh Tynjala
> >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not.
> If
> >>> > it’s
> >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> >>> >
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
> >>> piece of
> >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> >>> > foundation
> >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem
> to
> >>> me
> >>> > > like
> >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> >>> > representatives
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for
> our
> >>> > flex
> >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after
> we
> >>> > know
> >>> > > > the solution to this request
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
> >>> it,
> >>> > but
> >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thanks
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> >>> > > escribió:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or
> the
> >>> > > content
> >>> > > >> debugger.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> >>> > > necessary.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> wrote:
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to
> >>> any
> >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> >>> agreement
> >>> > > you
> >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it
> >>> did,
> >>> > > wenn
> >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> changed)
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > --
> >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>.
I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc
files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he
did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the
> flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server
> because of this line
>
> + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
>
> In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
>
> which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around
> that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> I’m running release ant script which has
>
> <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> failonerror="true" >
> <arg value="clean" />
> <arg value="install" />
> <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> </exec>
>
> This results in
>
> [exec] [INFO] Installing
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> [exec] [INFO]
> [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >-----------------
> [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> [6/13]
> [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> ]---------------------------------
> [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> [exec] [INFO]
> ===========================================================
> [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> .class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> for an explanation.
> [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc?
> [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> containing your system which is interpr
> eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> )
>
> Adding
>
> <arg
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> />
>
> Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> if that’s specific to my system.
>
> Can you advise?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>
> Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
> how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
> I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
> that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>
> I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
> new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
> files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
> start.
>
> Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
> can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
> also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
> distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
>
> The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
> specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
> also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
> be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
> stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
>
> I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
>
> Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
> yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
> framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
> artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
> that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
> airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
>
> Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
> this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the
> Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still
> need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
>
> I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
> still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
> build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> hadn't
> > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe
> SWC
> > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can
> now
> > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >
> > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> possible
> > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >
> > What I still need to do:
> >
> > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the
> > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I
> > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they
> all
> > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> > looking pretty solid.
> > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> files
> >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc.
> The
> >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
> Adobe
> >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have
> our
> >> version available as a backup.
> >>
> >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
> >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
> >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used
> in an
> >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> airglobal.swc.
> >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
> that.
> >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Josh,
> >>>
> >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
> >>> the
> >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
> >>> mavenizer.
> >>>
> >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >>> >)
> >>> escribió:
> >>>
> >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >>> playerglobal.swc
> >>> > without running into license issues.
> >>> >
> >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and
> no
> >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that
> we
> >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >>> >
> >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> playerglobal.swc
> >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> information
> >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> could
> >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> >>> classes
> >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Josh Tynjala
> >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not.
> If
> >>> > it’s
> >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> >>> >
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
> >>> piece of
> >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> >>> > foundation
> >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem
> to
> >>> me
> >>> > > like
> >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> >>> > representatives
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for
> our
> >>> > flex
> >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after
> we
> >>> > know
> >>> > > > the solution to this request
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
> >>> it,
> >>> > but
> >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thanks
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> >>> > > escribió:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or
> the
> >>> > > content
> >>> > > >> debugger.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> >>> > > necessary.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> wrote:
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to
> >>> any
> >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> >>> agreement
> >>> > > you
> >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it
> >>> did,
> >>> > > wenn
> >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> changed)
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > --
> >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>>
> >>
>
>
RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server because of this line
+ - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0
In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES
which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around that?
Thanks.
From: Yishay Weiss<ma...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Hi Josh,
I’m running release ant script which has
<exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources" failonerror="true" >
<arg value="clean" />
<arg value="install" />
<arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
</exec>
This results in
[exec] [INFO] Installing C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
[exec] [INFO]
[exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler >-----------------
[exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 [6/13]
[exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar ]---------------------------------
[exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
[exec] [INFO] ===========================================================
[exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
[exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
.class]
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
[exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an explanation.
[exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
[exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
[exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player playerglobal.swc?
[exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property containing your system which is interpr
eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf )
Adding
<arg value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf" />
Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or if that’s specific to my system.
Can you advise?
Thanks.
From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
start.
Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
`-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the
Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still
need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
wrote:
> Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I hadn't
> had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe SWC
> yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can now
> successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
>
> I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it possible
> to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
>
> What I still need to do:
>
> - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the
> docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I
> plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all
> compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> looking pretty solid.
> - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> Harman, if they'd prefer.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
>> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
>> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
>> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
>> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
>> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
>> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
>> version available as a backup.
>>
>> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
>> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
>> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
>> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
>> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
>> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
>>> the
>>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
>>> mavenizer.
>>>
>>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
>>> >)
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>>> playerglobal.swc
>>> > without running into license issues.
>>> >
>>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
>>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
>>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
>>> >
>>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
>>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
>>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
>>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>>> classes
>>> > and build a SWC from that.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Josh Tynjala
>>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
>>> > it’s
>>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
>>> > >
>>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Hi Harbs,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
>>> piece of
>>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
>>> > foundation
>>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to
>>> me
>>> > > like
>>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
>>> > representatives
>>> > > to
>>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
>>> > flex
>>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
>>> > know
>>> > > > the solution to this request
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
>>> it,
>>> > but
>>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
>>> > > escribió:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
>>> > > content
>>> > > >> debugger.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
>>> > > necessary.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
>>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> wrote:
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to
>>> any
>>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
>>> agreement
>>> > > you
>>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it
>>> did,
>>> > > wenn
>>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Carlos Rovira
>>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>
>>
Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>.
Yes, it's specific to your system, so don't commit that extra <arg/>. I
assume that you can
add -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
to the end of your terminal command when you run the Ant release script.
I've never done a release, so that's just a guess. As far as I know, this
part has not changed since the previous releases.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 12:36 AM Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> I’m running release ant script which has
>
> <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources"
> failonerror="true" >
> <arg value="clean" />
> <arg value="install" />
> <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
> </exec>
>
> This results in
>
> [exec] [INFO] Installing
> C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
> r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
> [exec] [INFO]
> [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler
> >-----------------
> [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8
> [6/13]
> [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar
> ]---------------------------------
> [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact:
> com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
> [exec] [INFO]
> ===========================================================
> [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
> [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
> aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
> .class]
> [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in
> [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
> [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings
> for an explanation.
> [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type
> [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
> [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
> [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash
> Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player
> playerglobal.swc?
> [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build,
> alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property
> containing your system which is interpr
> eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes:
> -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf
> )
>
> Adding
>
> <arg
> value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf"
> />
>
> Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or
> if that’s specific to my system.
>
> Can you advise?
>
> Thanks.
>
> From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
> To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed
> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
>
> Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
>
> Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
> how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
> I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
> Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
> that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
>
> I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
> new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
> files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
> start.
>
> Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
> can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
> all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
> also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
> distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
>
> The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
> specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
> `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
> option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
> also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
> be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
> stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
>
> I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
>
> Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
> yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
> framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
> env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
> artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
> that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
> airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
>
> Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
> env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
> this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the
> Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still
> need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
>
> I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
> still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
> release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
> env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
> build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
> > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I
> hadn't
> > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe
> SWC
> > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can
> now
> > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
> >
> > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it
> possible
> > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
> >
> > What I still need to do:
> >
> > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> > should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the
> > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I
> > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they
> all
> > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> > looking pretty solid.
> > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> > Harman, if they'd prefer.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
> >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as
> files
> >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc.
> The
> >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
> >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If
> Adobe
> >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have
> our
> >> version available as a backup.
> >>
> >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
> >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
> >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used
> in an
> >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or
> airglobal.swc.
> >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of
> that.
> >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Josh,
> >>>
> >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
> >>> the
> >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
> >>> mavenizer.
> >>>
> >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<
> joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
> >>> >)
> >>> escribió:
> >>>
> >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
> >>> playerglobal.swc
> >>> > without running into license issues.
> >>> >
> >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and
> no
> >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that
> we
> >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
> >>> >
> >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for
> playerglobal.swc
> >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough
> information
> >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone
> could
> >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
> >>> classes
> >>> > and build a SWC from that.
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Josh Tynjala
> >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not.
> If
> >>> > it’s
> >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> >>> >
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Hi Harbs,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
> >>> piece of
> >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
> >>> > foundation
> >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem
> to
> >>> me
> >>> > > like
> >>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
> >>> > representatives
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for
> our
> >>> > flex
> >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after
> we
> >>> > know
> >>> > > > the solution to this request
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
> >>> it,
> >>> > but
> >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thanks
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> >>> > > escribió:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or
> the
> >>> > > content
> >>> > > >> debugger.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
> >>> > > necessary.
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> >>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >> wrote:
> >>> > > >>>
> >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to
> >>> any
> >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
> >>> agreement
> >>> > > you
> >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it
> >>> did,
> >>> > > wenn
> >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things
> changed)
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > --
> >>> > > > Carlos Rovira
> >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
> >>> *Apache Software Foundation*
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>>
> >>
>
>
RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash
Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Josh,
I’m running release ant script which has
<exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources" failonerror="true" >
<arg value="clean" />
<arg value="install" />
<arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" />
</exec>
This results in
[exec] [INFO] Installing C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile
r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar
[exec] [INFO]
[exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler >-----------------
[exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 [6/13]
[exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar ]---------------------------------
[exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom
[exec] [INFO] ===========================================================
[exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0
[exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m
aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder
.class]
[exec] SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
[exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an explanation.
[exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory]
[exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf
[exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player playerglobal.swc?
[exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property containing your system which is interpr
eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf )
Adding
<arg value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf" />
Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or if that’s specific to my system.
Can you advise?
Thanks.
From: Josh Tynjala<ma...@bowlerhat.dev>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM
To: Apache Royale Development<ma...@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?)
Here's a follow-up with my progress in March.
Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out
how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too.
I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs.
Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files
that Adobe donated to Apache Flex.
I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these
new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc
files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid
start.
Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You
can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build
all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can
also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz
distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts.
The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you
specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and
`-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder`
option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but
also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to
be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe
stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it.
I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point.
Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere
yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all
framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have
env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe
artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer
that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our
airglobal/playerglobal automatically.
Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and
env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time
this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the
Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still
need Flash Player to run tests, of course).
I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is
still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a
release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify
env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution
build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before.
--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
wrote:
> Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed
> playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using
> the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I hadn't
> had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe SWC
> yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work
> at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I
> discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can now
> successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including
> running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's
> "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too.
>
> I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work
> more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After
> getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it possible
> to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line.
>
> What I still need to do:
>
> - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs
> should not appear in playerglobal.swc.
> - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the
> Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the
> docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I
> plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex,
> Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they all
> compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be
> looking pretty solid.
> - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new
> playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to
> allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or
> Harman, if they'd prefer.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <jo...@bowlerhat.dev>
> wrote:
>
>> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the
>> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as files
>> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. The
>> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own
>> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If Adobe
>> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have our
>> version available as a backup.
>>
>> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build
>> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors.
>> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used in an
>> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or airglobal.swc.
>> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of that.
>> I just wanted to share my current progress so far!
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have
>>> the
>>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by
>>> mavenizer.
>>>
>>> Could it be possible that you contribute it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (<joshtynjala@bowlerhat.dev
>>> >)
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom
>>> playerglobal.swc
>>> > without running into license issues.
>>> >
>>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and no
>>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that we
>>> > create for JS libraries in Royale
>>> >
>>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for playerglobal.swc
>>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough information
>>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone could
>>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub
>>> classes
>>> > and build a SWC from that.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Josh Tynjala
>>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. If
>>> > it’s
>>> > > an issue we can debate solutions.
>>> > >
>>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is.
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Hi Harbs,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a
>>> piece of
>>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the
>>> > foundation
>>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem to
>>> me
>>> > > like
>>> > > > a solution to the real problem.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe
>>> > representatives
>>> > > to
>>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for our
>>> > flex
>>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after we
>>> > know
>>> > > > the solution to this request
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do
>>> it,
>>> > but
>>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
>>> > > escribió:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or the
>>> > > content
>>> > > >> debugger.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if
>>> > > necessary.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz <
>>> > christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>>> > > >
>>> > > >> wrote:
>>> > > >>>
>>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to
>>> any
>>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license
>>> agreement
>>> > > you
>>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it
>>> did,
>>> > > wenn
>>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things changed)
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Carlos Rovira
>>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC
>>> *Apache Software Foundation*
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>
>>