You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> on 2017/10/14 20:58:45 UTC
Re: [royale-asjs] 05/09: another sweep of flex replaced by royale per Issue #17. This is hard because we use 'flex' in 'flexUnit' and in flex box css properties
There is a mismatch in this file:
<flex-sdk-description>
<name>Apache Flex ${project.version} FP${flash.version} AIR${air.version} en_US</name>
<!--version>${project.version}</version-->
<!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this version -->
<version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
<build>${timestamp}</build>
</royale-sdk-description>
I’m not sure which is a mistake, but eh opening tag of flex-sdk-description does not match the closing tag of royale-sdk-description
I’m wondering whether Flash Builder will recognize royale-sdk-description.
Harbs
> On Oct 7, 2017, at 12:21 AM, aharui@apache.org wrote:
>
> diff --git a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> index a4bf265..099982c 100644
> --- a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> +++ b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this version -->
> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
> <build>${timestamp}</build>
> -</flex-sdk-description>
> +</royale-sdk-description>
Re: [royale-asjs] 05/09: another sweep of flex replaced by royale per
Issue #17. This is hard because we use 'flex' in 'flexUnit' and in flex box
css properties
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
My point is that we should leave those scripts as is for now. Till the
moment when we have rename merged and we will try Royale in Moonshine and
eventually Josh pickup it in VSCode.
If it is already renamed - try to get back to the old, raise an issue for
change it later and let's move forward.
Piotr
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 18:18 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> IMO, if we are ok having files with the name 'flex' in it, why bother
> duplicating the information in a 'royale' file? VSCode and Moonshine are
> under active development and could change (and maybe want to).
>
> An alternative would be to have one or two scripts that transform a Royale
> SDK to make it compatible with older Flex IDEs. I think we're going to
> need one anyway for Flash Builder. Yes, those script names might have
> 'flex' in the name (ConvertToFlexSDK.xml) but it makes it appear more like
> a backward compatibility thing than a "we currently use flex" thing.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 10/16/17, 4:13 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >+1 for having both. The same could be with flex-config.xml - We could have
> >both.
> >
> >Piotr
> >
> >On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 12:23 Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The VS Code extension requires flex-sdk-description too.
> >>
> >> I think we should include both flex-sdk-description and
> >> royale-sdk-description for now. We can deprecate flex-sdk-description at
> >> some point in the future, but I think we should try and make the
> >>migration
> >> as painless as possible for now.
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >> > On Oct 16, 2017, at 1:29 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Pretty sure that Flash Builder will be looking for
> >> > flex-sdk-description.xml.
> >> >
> >> > It might be that Flash Builder users will have to run an Ant script to
> >> > fully set up their SDKs and we could use that to rename a
> >> > royale-sdk-description file.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> > On 10/14/17, 1:58 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There is a mismatch in this file:
> >> >>
> >> >> <flex-sdk-description>
> >> >> <name>Apache Flex ${project.version} FP${flash.version}
> >> >> AIR${air.version} en_US</name>
> >> >> <!--version>${project.version}</version-->
> >> >> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
> >>version
> >> >> -->
> >> >> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
> >> >> <build>${timestamp}</build>
> >> >> </royale-sdk-description>
> >> >>
> >> >> I’m not sure which is a mistake, but eh opening tag of
> >> >> flex-sdk-description does not match the closing tag of
> >> >> royale-sdk-description
> >> >>
> >> >> I’m wondering whether Flash Builder will recognize
> >> royale-sdk-description.
> >> >>
> >> >> Harbs
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2017, at 12:21 AM, aharui@apache.org wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> diff --git
> >>a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >> >>> b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >> >>> index a4bf265..099982c 100644
> >> >>> --- a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >> >>> +++ b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >> >>> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
> >> >>> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
> >> >>> version -->
> >> >>> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
> >> >>> <build>${timestamp}</build>
> >> >>> -</flex-sdk-description>
> >> >>> +</royale-sdk-description>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [royale-asjs] 05/09: another sweep of flex replaced by royale per
Issue #17. This is hard because we use 'flex' in 'flexUnit' and in flex box
css properties
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
IMO, if we are ok having files with the name 'flex' in it, why bother
duplicating the information in a 'royale' file? VSCode and Moonshine are
under active development and could change (and maybe want to).
An alternative would be to have one or two scripts that transform a Royale
SDK to make it compatible with older Flex IDEs. I think we're going to
need one anyway for Flash Builder. Yes, those script names might have
'flex' in the name (ConvertToFlexSDK.xml) but it makes it appear more like
a backward compatibility thing than a "we currently use flex" thing.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 10/16/17, 4:13 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1 for having both. The same could be with flex-config.xml - We could have
>both.
>
>Piotr
>
>On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 12:23 Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The VS Code extension requires flex-sdk-description too.
>>
>> I think we should include both flex-sdk-description and
>> royale-sdk-description for now. We can deprecate flex-sdk-description at
>> some point in the future, but I think we should try and make the
>>migration
>> as painless as possible for now.
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>> > On Oct 16, 2017, at 1:29 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Pretty sure that Flash Builder will be looking for
>> > flex-sdk-description.xml.
>> >
>> > It might be that Flash Builder users will have to run an Ant script to
>> > fully set up their SDKs and we could use that to rename a
>> > royale-sdk-description file.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 10/14/17, 1:58 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is a mismatch in this file:
>> >>
>> >> <flex-sdk-description>
>> >> <name>Apache Flex ${project.version} FP${flash.version}
>> >> AIR${air.version} en_US</name>
>> >> <!--version>${project.version}</version-->
>> >> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
>>version
>> >> -->
>> >> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
>> >> <build>${timestamp}</build>
>> >> </royale-sdk-description>
>> >>
>> >> I’m not sure which is a mistake, but eh opening tag of
>> >> flex-sdk-description does not match the closing tag of
>> >> royale-sdk-description
>> >>
>> >> I’m wondering whether Flash Builder will recognize
>> royale-sdk-description.
>> >>
>> >> Harbs
>> >>
>> >>> On Oct 7, 2017, at 12:21 AM, aharui@apache.org wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git
>>a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> index a4bf265..099982c 100644
>> >>> --- a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> +++ b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
>> >>> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
>> >>> version -->
>> >>> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
>> >>> <build>${timestamp}</build>
>> >>> -</flex-sdk-description>
>> >>> +</royale-sdk-description>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [royale-asjs] 05/09: another sweep of flex replaced by royale per
Issue #17. This is hard because we use 'flex' in 'flexUnit' and in flex box
css properties
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
+1 for having both. The same could be with flex-config.xml - We could have
both.
Piotr
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 12:23 Harbs <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The VS Code extension requires flex-sdk-description too.
>
> I think we should include both flex-sdk-description and
> royale-sdk-description for now. We can deprecate flex-sdk-description at
> some point in the future, but I think we should try and make the migration
> as painless as possible for now.
>
> Harbs
>
> > On Oct 16, 2017, at 1:29 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > Pretty sure that Flash Builder will be looking for
> > flex-sdk-description.xml.
> >
> > It might be that Flash Builder users will have to run an Ant script to
> > fully set up their SDKs and we could use that to rename a
> > royale-sdk-description file.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 10/14/17, 1:58 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There is a mismatch in this file:
> >>
> >> <flex-sdk-description>
> >> <name>Apache Flex ${project.version} FP${flash.version}
> >> AIR${air.version} en_US</name>
> >> <!--version>${project.version}</version-->
> >> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this version
> >> -->
> >> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
> >> <build>${timestamp}</build>
> >> </royale-sdk-description>
> >>
> >> I’m not sure which is a mistake, but eh opening tag of
> >> flex-sdk-description does not match the closing tag of
> >> royale-sdk-description
> >>
> >> I’m wondering whether Flash Builder will recognize
> royale-sdk-description.
> >>
> >> Harbs
> >>
> >>> On Oct 7, 2017, at 12:21 AM, aharui@apache.org wrote:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >>> b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >>> index a4bf265..099982c 100644
> >>> --- a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >>> +++ b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
> >>> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
> >>> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
> >>> version -->
> >>> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
> >>> <build>${timestamp}</build>
> >>> -</flex-sdk-description>
> >>> +</royale-sdk-description>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [royale-asjs] 05/09: another sweep of flex replaced by royale per Issue #17. This is hard because we use 'flex' in 'flexUnit' and in flex box css properties
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
The VS Code extension requires flex-sdk-description too.
I think we should include both flex-sdk-description and royale-sdk-description for now. We can deprecate flex-sdk-description at some point in the future, but I think we should try and make the migration as painless as possible for now.
Harbs
> On Oct 16, 2017, at 1:29 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Pretty sure that Flash Builder will be looking for
> flex-sdk-description.xml.
>
> It might be that Flash Builder users will have to run an Ant script to
> fully set up their SDKs and we could use that to rename a
> royale-sdk-description file.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
> On 10/14/17, 1:58 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a mismatch in this file:
>>
>> <flex-sdk-description>
>> <name>Apache Flex ${project.version} FP${flash.version}
>> AIR${air.version} en_US</name>
>> <!--version>${project.version}</version-->
>> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this version
>> -->
>> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
>> <build>${timestamp}</build>
>> </royale-sdk-description>
>>
>> I’m not sure which is a mistake, but eh opening tag of
>> flex-sdk-description does not match the closing tag of
>> royale-sdk-description
>>
>> I’m wondering whether Flash Builder will recognize royale-sdk-description.
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2017, at 12:21 AM, aharui@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>>> b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>>> index a4bf265..099982c 100644
>>> --- a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>>> +++ b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>>> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
>>> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
>>> version -->
>>> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
>>> <build>${timestamp}</build>
>>> -</flex-sdk-description>
>>> +</royale-sdk-description>
>>
>
Re: [royale-asjs] 05/09: another sweep of flex replaced by royale per
Issue #17. This is hard because we use 'flex' in 'flexUnit' and in flex box
css properties
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Pretty sure that Flash Builder will be looking for
flex-sdk-description.xml.
It might be that Flash Builder users will have to run an Ant script to
fully set up their SDKs and we could use that to rename a
royale-sdk-description file.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 10/14/17, 1:58 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There is a mismatch in this file:
>
><flex-sdk-description>
> <name>Apache Flex ${project.version} FP${flash.version}
>AIR${air.version} en_US</name>
> <!--version>${project.version}</version-->
> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this version
>-->
> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
> <build>${timestamp}</build>
></royale-sdk-description>
>
>I’m not sure which is a mistake, but eh opening tag of
>flex-sdk-description does not match the closing tag of
>royale-sdk-description
>
>I’m wondering whether Flash Builder will recognize royale-sdk-description.
>
>Harbs
>
>> On Oct 7, 2017, at 12:21 AM, aharui@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>>b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> index a4bf265..099982c 100644
>> --- a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> +++ b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
>> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
>>version -->
>> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
>> <build>${timestamp}</build>
>> -</flex-sdk-description>
>> +</royale-sdk-description>
>