You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com> on 2017/10/04 17:41:53 UTC
[Royale] Using nightly builds
I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/
2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the -bin.zip file
3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for the last release 0.8)
4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify the asconfig file)
Is this the correct way ?
Is there anything else that I should also get from the apacheflexbuild site ? (compiler ?...)
Thank you,
Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 15:37
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
>
> Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> release packages.
>
> For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they have no
> need to install anything Flash related. For someone only interested in
> outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all, they wouldn’t need
> much more than the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
> should probably have different compiler defaults.
>
> The different release packages might have different names.
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and skip
> the JS part?
> >
> >
> > -Mark K
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> names)
> >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> dictate
> >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> could
> >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> >>
> >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> solutions
> >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read
> about
> >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> >> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could
> make
> >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> >>
> >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> "JS",
> >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> >>
> >> That's my 2ctn
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> 'packaging'
> >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> naming of
> >>> the product(s) of this project.
> >>>
> >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think
> is an
> >>> excellent suggestion:
> >>>
> >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> >>> IDE-friendly release
> >>> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and
> another
> >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have
> most of
> >>> that working.
> >>>
> >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> other one
> >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean
> "Royale
> >>> for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> and
> >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
> definitely
> >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> >>> markets."
> >>>
> >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> >>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> >>>
> >>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> product (e.g.
> >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> name the
> >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have
> a
> >>> product with the same name as the project and then have other
> products from
> >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
> with a
> >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the
> various
> >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my
> head, just
> >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> EdB
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>>
> >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>>
> >>> T. 06-51952295
> >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> >>
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >>
> >> Director General
> >>
> >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >>
> >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >>
> >>
> >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> >>
> >>
> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> contener
> >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje
> por
> >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma
> vía y
> >> proceda a su destrucción.
> >>
> >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> comunicamos
> >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> CODEOSCOPIC
> >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación
> del
> >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de
> acceso,
> >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> nuestras
> >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> documentación
> >> necesaria.
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Alex,
You just refreshed my memory! :) Moonshine is using for codeinteligence old
compiler from Josh's plugin, cause it's build in jar, but for building
whole project it is using what we setup.
Nicolas,
In case of VSCode there is not such problem cause you can simply setup what
kind of compiler is used for that purposes. Just setup in settings for
VSCode:
"nextgenas.sdk.editor": path to SDK.
Check whether you see problem with: compiler.fxg-base-class.
Piotr
2017-10-05 18:06 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> These errors imply that an older version of the compiler is being used,
> instead of the one in the Nightly, since it worked for Piotr in Moonshine.
> Hopefully Josh can figure that out.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 10/5/17, 8:15 AM, "Idylog - Nicolas Granon" <ng...@idylog.com> wrote:
> >Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
> >
> >I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
> >The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
> >(the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything
> >inside it)
> >
> >Errors showing in "problems" panel :
> >
> >Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown
> >Cannot open (path to install
> >folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\playerglobal.swc
> >Cannot open (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
> >
> >
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi Nicolas,
These errors imply that an older version of the compiler is being used,
instead of the one in the Nightly, since it worked for Piotr in Moonshine.
Hopefully Josh can figure that out.
-Alex
On 10/5/17, 8:15 AM, "Idylog - Nicolas Granon" <ng...@idylog.com> wrote:
>Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
>
>I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
>The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
>(the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything
>inside it)
>
>Errors showing in "problems" panel :
>
>Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown
>Cannot open (path to install
>folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\playerglobal.swc
>Cannot open (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
>
>
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Nicolas,
I just download last JS only nightly and did quick check through the
Moonshine. I was able to build hello world project. Apart of that problem
with player global you should be able to run your build.
I'm wondering only why release version wasn't produced.
Let me know how it goes.
Thanks,
Piotr
2017-10-05 17:47 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
> No problem! We are all here to help you :) Let me know about the progress.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-10-05 17:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>:
>
>> Thank you for this information (I'm quite novice at the development
>> process...).
>>
>> I will double check the instructions.
>>
>> Nicolas Granon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
>> > Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 17:36
>> > À : dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com
>> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>> >
>> > Nicolas,
>> >
>> > Validators are in branch feature/validation [1]. Nightly build is using
>> > branch "develop", once someone finish work on validation it will be
>> > probably merged to develop. - There is also option that you can
>> > yourself build SDK and try it out.
>> >
>> > As for your problems - if build produce correct JS output, I suggest
>> > raise issue in Josh's repository in case those missing playerglobal.
>> >
>> > Did you check this instruction [2] ?
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/feature/validation
>> > [2]
>> > https://github.com/BowlerHatLLC/vscode-nextgenas/wiki/Build-an-
>> > ActionScript-project-in-Visual-Studio-Code
>> >
>> > Piotr
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-10-05 17:15 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
>> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
>> >
>> > > There was a mistake in my previous message : The path to the SDK is
>> > in
>> > > settings.json, of course, not asconfig.json (working with VSCode).
>> > >
>> > > Well, I have changed the "nextgenas.sdk.framework" value (in
>> > > settings.json) to point to the correct folder.
>> > >
>> > > Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
>> > >
>> > > I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
>> > > The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
>> > > (the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything
>> > > inside it)
>> > >
>> > > Errors showing in "problems" panel :
>> > >
>> > > Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown Cannot open
>> > > (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\
>> > > playerglobal.swc
>> > > Cannot open (path to install
>> > > folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > However, the "terminal" panel says that the project was successfully
>> > > compiled and optimized.
>> > > And in fact, the js-debug folder content seems correct.
>> > >
>> > > It seems that the build task is looking for playerglobal, although
>> > > maybe it does not need it ???
>> > > Maybe same problem for the "compiler.fxg-base-class" error ?
>> > >
>> > > When using SDK 0.8.0 there are no problems in the "problems" panel,
>> > > but when I installed SDK 0.8.0, I launched the "installer.xml" ant
>> > > task after unzipping the bin archive.
>> > >
>> > > Also, there is something that I do not understand : I was expecting
>> > to
>> > > find the current version of Validator somewhere but I cannot find it
>> > > (testing Validator was the reason for grabbing nightly build).
>> > > I downloaded "apache-flex-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip". Is this the latest
>> > > nightly build ?
>> > >
>> > > Did I miss something ?
>> > >
>> > > Another question : in the "tasks", I have an entry for "build-debug"
>> > > but nothing for "build-release" ????? How do you launch a build-
>> > release task ?
>> > > Should I create it myself ? What keys and values should be there ?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Nicolas Granon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
>> > > > Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 13:20
>> > > > À : dev@royale.apache.org
>> > > > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>> > > >
>> > > > I think that version of JS Only SDK was tested with Flash Builder
>> > > > and Moonshine IDE, but I'm not sure whether anyone is tried it to
>> > > > with VSCode.
>> > > >
>> > > > Piotr
>> > > >
>> > > > 2017-10-05 13:17 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki
>> > <pi...@gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Actually not. I think you should be able use those version
>> > without
>> > > > any
>> > > > > additional steps.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Piotr
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
>> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Should I launch :
>> > > > >> ant -f installer.xml
>> > > > >> after unzipping n a folder ?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Nicolas Granon
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > > >> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
>> > > > >> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55 À :
>> > > > >> > dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly
>> > builds
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Good Luck! :)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Piotr
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
>> > > > >> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
>> > > > >> > > understanding
>> > > > >> > > *before* I begin !
>> > > > >> > > Thanks a lot
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Nicolas Granon
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Piotr Zarzycki
>> > > > >> > > > [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
>> > > > >> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À :
>> > > > >> > > > dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re:
>> > > > >> > > > [Royale] Using nightly builds
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Hi Nicolas,
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ?
>> > > > >> > > > Of
>> > > > >> > course
>> > > > >> > > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler
>> > > > >> > > > config
>> > > > >> > setup
>> > > > >> > > > - targets= JSFlex.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Piotr
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
>> > > > >> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at
>> > http://apacheflexbuild.
>> > > > >> > > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
>> > > > >> > > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should
>> > > > >> > > > > get the -bin.zip file
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder
>> > > > >> > > > > (as I did for the last release 0.8)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said
>> > > > >> > > > > folder (modify the asconfig file)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Is this the correct way ?
>> > > > >> > > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
>> > > > >> > > > apacheflexbuild
>> > > > >> > > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Thank you,
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Nicolas Granon
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Harbs
>> > > > >> > > > > > [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
>> > > > >> > > > > > octobre
>> > > > >> > > > > > 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
>> > > > >> > > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably
>> > want
>> > > > >> > > > > > different release packages.
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible
>> > > > >> > > > > > components, they
>> > > > >> > > > have
>> > > > >> > > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone
>> > > > only
>> > > > >> > > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need
>> > > > >> > > > > > components at all, they wouldn’t need much more than
>> > > > >> > > > > > the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
>> > > > >> > > > > > should probably have different compiler
>> > > > >> > > > defaults.
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > The different release packages might have different
>> > names.
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
>> > > > >> > > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like
>> > Royale
>> > > > SDK
>> > > > >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > skip
>> > > > >> > > > > > the JS part?
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > -Mark K
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
>> > > > >> > > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> names (aka product
>> > > > >> > > > > > names)
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to
>> > Royale.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> compiler params
>> > > > >> > > > to
>> > > > >> > > > > > dictate
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> one
>> > > > >> > package
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> that
>> > > > >> > > > > > could
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> we can be their
>> > > > >> > > > > > solutions
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> will come to read
>> > > > >> > > > > > about
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> don't want those people be contaminated for old
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Flash
>> > > > or
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Flex that could
>> > > > >> > > > > > make
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to
>> > us.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> decided
>> > > > >> > to
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> remove
>> > > > >> > > > > > "JS",
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version
>> > inside
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Carlos
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
>> > > > >> > <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Hi,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> after the
>> > > > >> > > > > > 'packaging'
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss
>> > and
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> vote on the
>> > > > >> > > > > > naming of
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> following, which I think
>> > > > >> > > > > > is an
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> discussing two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> designed for folks
>> > > > >> > > > migrating
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
>> > > > >> > > > > > another
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> branch I
>> > > > >> > > > have
>> > > > >> > > > > > most of
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> that working.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package
>> > > > 'FlexJS'
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> and the
>> > > > >> > > > > > other one
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> some folks to mean
>> > > > >> > > > > > "Royale
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
>> > > > >> > > > > > and
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The
>> > project
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> name would
>> > > > >> > > > > > definitely
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> that denote target markets."
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS"
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> off all but the legacy/migration package, which
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> makes
>> > > > sense
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> to me
>> > > > >> > as well.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project
>> > create
>> > > > >> > multiple
>> > > > >> > > > > > product (e.g.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> we should
>> > > > >> > > > > > name the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> confusing to have
>> > > > >> > > > > > a
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then
>> > > > have
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> other
>> > > > >> > > > > > products from
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> suggest we
>> > > > >> > > > come
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> up
>> > > > >> > > > > > with a
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> functionality of
>> > > > >> > the
>> > > > >> > > > > > various
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the top
>> > > > >> > of
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> my
>> > > > >> > > > > > head, just
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-
>> > wasm,
>> > > > etc.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> What do you think?
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> EdB
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> --
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> --
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Director General
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
>> > > > <https://avant2.es/#video>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> destinatario y puede
>> > > > >> > > > > > contener
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> recibido este mensaje
>> > > > >> > > > > > por
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> inmediatamente por esta misma
>> > > > >> > > > > > vía y
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
>> > > > >> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> (15/1999), le
>> > > > >> > > > > > comunicamos
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> responsable es
>> > > > >> > > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> la
>> > > > >> > > > prestación
>> > > > >> > > > > > del
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> derecho
>> > > > >> > de
>> > > > >> > > > > > acceso,
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
>> > > > >> > > > > > nuestras
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> con la
>> > > > >> > > > > > documentación
>> > > > >> > > > > > >> necesaria.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > --
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> > > > >> > > > skype: zarzycki10
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > > > >> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > --
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Piotr Zarzycki
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> > > > >> > skype: zarzycki10
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > > > >> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Piotr Zarzycki
>> > > > >
>> > > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
>> > > > > skype: zarzycki10
>> > > > >
>> > > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
>> > > >
>> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> > > > skype: zarzycki10
>> > > >
>> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>> > > >
>> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Piotr Zarzycki
>> >
>> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> > skype: zarzycki10
>> >
>> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>> >
>> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
> skype: zarzycki10
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
No problem! We are all here to help you :) Let me know about the progress.
Piotr
2017-10-05 17:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>:
> Thank you for this information (I'm quite novice at the development
> process...).
>
> I will double check the instructions.
>
> Nicolas Granon
>
>
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 17:36
> > À : dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com
> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> >
> > Nicolas,
> >
> > Validators are in branch feature/validation [1]. Nightly build is using
> > branch "develop", once someone finish work on validation it will be
> > probably merged to develop. - There is also option that you can
> > yourself build SDK and try it out.
> >
> > As for your problems - if build produce correct JS output, I suggest
> > raise issue in Josh's repository in case those missing playerglobal.
> >
> > Did you check this instruction [2] ?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/feature/validation
> > [2]
> > https://github.com/BowlerHatLLC/vscode-nextgenas/wiki/Build-an-
> > ActionScript-project-in-Visual-Studio-Code
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> >
> > 2017-10-05 17:15 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> >
> > > There was a mistake in my previous message : The path to the SDK is
> > in
> > > settings.json, of course, not asconfig.json (working with VSCode).
> > >
> > > Well, I have changed the "nextgenas.sdk.framework" value (in
> > > settings.json) to point to the correct folder.
> > >
> > > Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
> > >
> > > I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
> > > The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
> > > (the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything
> > > inside it)
> > >
> > > Errors showing in "problems" panel :
> > >
> > > Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown Cannot open
> > > (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\
> > > playerglobal.swc
> > > Cannot open (path to install
> > > folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
> > >
> > >
> > > However, the "terminal" panel says that the project was successfully
> > > compiled and optimized.
> > > And in fact, the js-debug folder content seems correct.
> > >
> > > It seems that the build task is looking for playerglobal, although
> > > maybe it does not need it ???
> > > Maybe same problem for the "compiler.fxg-base-class" error ?
> > >
> > > When using SDK 0.8.0 there are no problems in the "problems" panel,
> > > but when I installed SDK 0.8.0, I launched the "installer.xml" ant
> > > task after unzipping the bin archive.
> > >
> > > Also, there is something that I do not understand : I was expecting
> > to
> > > find the current version of Validator somewhere but I cannot find it
> > > (testing Validator was the reason for grabbing nightly build).
> > > I downloaded "apache-flex-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip". Is this the latest
> > > nightly build ?
> > >
> > > Did I miss something ?
> > >
> > > Another question : in the "tasks", I have an entry for "build-debug"
> > > but nothing for "build-release" ????? How do you launch a build-
> > release task ?
> > > Should I create it myself ? What keys and values should be there ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Nicolas Granon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > > Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 13:20
> > > > À : dev@royale.apache.org
> > > > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> > > >
> > > > I think that version of JS Only SDK was tested with Flash Builder
> > > > and Moonshine IDE, but I'm not sure whether anyone is tried it to
> > > > with VSCode.
> > > >
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > 2017-10-05 13:17 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki
> > <pi...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually not. I think you should be able use those version
> > without
> > > > any
> > > > > additional steps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Piotr
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Should I launch :
> > > > >> ant -f installer.xml
> > > > >> after unzipping n a folder ?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nicolas Granon
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > >> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > > >> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55 À :
> > > > >> > dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly
> > builds
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Good Luck! :)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Piotr
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > > >> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
> > > > >> > > understanding
> > > > >> > > *before* I begin !
> > > > >> > > Thanks a lot
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Nicolas Granon
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >> > > > [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > > >> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À :
> > > > >> > > > dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re:
> > > > >> > > > [Royale] Using nightly builds
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Hi Nicolas,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ?
> > > > >> > > > Of
> > > > >> > course
> > > > >> > > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler
> > > > >> > > > config
> > > > >> > setup
> > > > >> > > > - targets= JSFlex.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Piotr
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > > >> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at
> > http://apacheflexbuild.
> > > > >> > > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > > > >> > > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should
> > > > >> > > > > get the -bin.zip file
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder
> > > > >> > > > > (as I did for the last release 0.8)
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said
> > > > >> > > > > folder (modify the asconfig file)
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Is this the correct way ?
> > > > >> > > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> > > > >> > > > apacheflexbuild
> > > > >> > > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Nicolas Granon
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Harbs
> > > > >> > > > > > [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
> > > > >> > > > > > octobre
> > > > >> > > > > > 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
> > > > >> > > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably
> > want
> > > > >> > > > > > different release packages.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible
> > > > >> > > > > > components, they
> > > > >> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone
> > > > only
> > > > >> > > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need
> > > > >> > > > > > components at all, they wouldn’t need much more than
> > > > >> > > > > > the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
> > > > >> > > > > > should probably have different compiler
> > > > >> > > > defaults.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > The different release packages might have different
> > names.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > > > >> > > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like
> > Royale
> > > > SDK
> > > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > skip
> > > > >> > > > > > the JS part?
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > -Mark K
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > > >> > > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub
> > > > >> > > > > > >> names (aka product
> > > > >> > > > > > names)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to
> > Royale.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via
> > > > >> > > > > > >> compiler params
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > dictate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only
> > > > >> > > > > > >> one
> > > > >> > package
> > > > >> > > > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > > > > could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know
> > > > >> > > > > > >> we can be their
> > > > >> > > > > > solutions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> will come to read
> > > > >> > > > > > about
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
> > > > >> > > > > > >> don't want those people be contaminated for old
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Flash
> > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Flex that could
> > > > >> > > > > > make
> > > > >> > > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to
> > us.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> decided
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> remove
> > > > >> > > > > > "JS",
> > > > >> > > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version
> > inside
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Carlos
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
> > > > >> > <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> after the
> > > > >> > > > > > 'packaging'
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss
> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> vote on the
> > > > >> > > > > > naming of
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> following, which I think
> > > > >> > > > > > is an
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> discussing two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> designed for folks
> > > > >> > > > migrating
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > > > >> > > > > > another
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> branch I
> > > > >> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > most of
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> that working.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package
> > > > 'FlexJS'
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> and the
> > > > >> > > > > > other one
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> some folks to mean
> > > > >> > > > > > "Royale
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > > > >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The
> > project
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> name would
> > > > >> > > > > > definitely
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> that denote target markets."
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS"
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> off all but the legacy/migration package, which
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> makes
> > > > sense
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> to me
> > > > >> > as well.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project
> > create
> > > > >> > multiple
> > > > >> > > > > > product (e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think
> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> we should
> > > > >> > > > > > name the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> confusing to have
> > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then
> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> other
> > > > >> > > > > > products from
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> suggest we
> > > > >> > > > come
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> up
> > > > >> > > > > > with a
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> functionality of
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > various
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> the top
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> my
> > > > >> > > > > > head, just
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-
> > wasm,
> > > > etc.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> What do you think?
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> EdB
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > > > >> > > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> --
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Director General
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> > > > <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su
> > > > >> > > > > > >> destinatario y puede
> > > > >> > > > > > contener
> > > > >> > > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha
> > > > >> > > > > > >> recibido este mensaje
> > > > >> > > > > > por
> > > > >> > > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique
> > > > >> > > > > > >> inmediatamente por esta misma
> > > > >> > > > > > vía y
> > > > >> > > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos
> > > > >> > > > > > >> (15/1999), le
> > > > >> > > > > > comunicamos
> > > > >> > > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
> > > > >> > > > > > >> responsable es
> > > > >> > > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
> > > > >> > > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar
> > > > >> > > > > > >> la
> > > > >> > > > prestación
> > > > >> > > > > > del
> > > > >> > > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> > > > >> > > > > > >> derecho
> > > > >> > de
> > > > >> > > > > > acceso,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> > > > >> > > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
> > > > >> > > > > > nuestras
> > > > >> > > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid
> > > > >> > > > > > >> con la
> > > > >> > > > > > documentación
> > > > >> > > > > > >> necesaria.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > > >> > > > skype: zarzycki10
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > > >> > skype: zarzycki10
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > >> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > > >
> > > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
> > > > > skype: zarzycki10
> > > > >
> > > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > > >
> > > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >
> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > > skype: zarzycki10
> > > >
> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > >
> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > skype: zarzycki10
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
RE: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>.
Thank you for this information (I'm quite novice at the development process...).
I will double check the instructions.
Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 17:36
> À : dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com
> Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>
> Nicolas,
>
> Validators are in branch feature/validation [1]. Nightly build is using
> branch "develop", once someone finish work on validation it will be
> probably merged to develop. - There is also option that you can
> yourself build SDK and try it out.
>
> As for your problems - if build produce correct JS output, I suggest
> raise issue in Josh's repository in case those missing playerglobal.
>
> Did you check this instruction [2] ?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/feature/validation
> [2]
> https://github.com/BowlerHatLLC/vscode-nextgenas/wiki/Build-an-
> ActionScript-project-in-Visual-Studio-Code
>
> Piotr
>
>
> 2017-10-05 17:15 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> <ng...@idylog.com>:
>
> > There was a mistake in my previous message : The path to the SDK is
> in
> > settings.json, of course, not asconfig.json (working with VSCode).
> >
> > Well, I have changed the "nextgenas.sdk.framework" value (in
> > settings.json) to point to the correct folder.
> >
> > Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
> >
> > I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
> > The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
> > (the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything
> > inside it)
> >
> > Errors showing in "problems" panel :
> >
> > Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown Cannot open
> > (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\
> > playerglobal.swc
> > Cannot open (path to install
> > folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
> >
> >
> > However, the "terminal" panel says that the project was successfully
> > compiled and optimized.
> > And in fact, the js-debug folder content seems correct.
> >
> > It seems that the build task is looking for playerglobal, although
> > maybe it does not need it ???
> > Maybe same problem for the "compiler.fxg-base-class" error ?
> >
> > When using SDK 0.8.0 there are no problems in the "problems" panel,
> > but when I installed SDK 0.8.0, I launched the "installer.xml" ant
> > task after unzipping the bin archive.
> >
> > Also, there is something that I do not understand : I was expecting
> to
> > find the current version of Validator somewhere but I cannot find it
> > (testing Validator was the reason for grabbing nightly build).
> > I downloaded "apache-flex-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip". Is this the latest
> > nightly build ?
> >
> > Did I miss something ?
> >
> > Another question : in the "tasks", I have an entry for "build-debug"
> > but nothing for "build-release" ????? How do you launch a build-
> release task ?
> > Should I create it myself ? What keys and values should be there ?
> >
> >
> > Nicolas Granon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 13:20
> > > À : dev@royale.apache.org
> > > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> > >
> > > I think that version of JS Only SDK was tested with Flash Builder
> > > and Moonshine IDE, but I'm not sure whether anyone is tried it to
> > > with VSCode.
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > 2017-10-05 13:17 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki
> <pi...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Actually not. I think you should be able use those version
> without
> > > any
> > > > additional steps.
> > > >
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > 2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Should I launch :
> > > >> ant -f installer.xml
> > > >> after unzipping n a folder ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Nicolas Granon
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > >> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > >> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55 À :
> > > >> > dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly
> builds
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Good Luck! :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Piotr
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > >> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
> > > >> > > understanding
> > > >> > > *before* I begin !
> > > >> > > Thanks a lot
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Nicolas Granon
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >> > > > [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > >> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À :
> > > >> > > > dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re:
> > > >> > > > [Royale] Using nightly builds
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Hi Nicolas,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ?
> > > >> > > > Of
> > > >> > course
> > > >> > > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler
> > > >> > > > config
> > > >> > setup
> > > >> > > > - targets= JSFlex.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Piotr
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > >> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at
> http://apacheflexbuild.
> > > >> > > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > > >> > > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should
> > > >> > > > > get the -bin.zip file
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder
> > > >> > > > > (as I did for the last release 0.8)
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said
> > > >> > > > > folder (modify the asconfig file)
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Is this the correct way ?
> > > >> > > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> > > >> > > > apacheflexbuild
> > > >> > > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thank you,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Nicolas Granon
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Harbs
> > > >> > > > > > [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
> > > >> > > > > > octobre
> > > >> > > > > > 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
> > > >> > > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably
> want
> > > >> > > > > > different release packages.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible
> > > >> > > > > > components, they
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone
> > > only
> > > >> > > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need
> > > >> > > > > > components at all, they wouldn’t need much more than
> > > >> > > > > > the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
> > > >> > > > > > should probably have different compiler
> > > >> > > > defaults.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > The different release packages might have different
> names.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > > >> > > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like
> Royale
> > > SDK
> > > >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > skip
> > > >> > > > > > the JS part?
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > -Mark K
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > >> > > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub
> > > >> > > > > > >> names (aka product
> > > >> > > > > > names)
> > > >> > > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to
> Royale.
> > > >> > > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via
> > > >> > > > > > >> compiler params
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > dictate
> > > >> > > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > > >> > > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only
> > > >> > > > > > >> one
> > > >> > package
> > > >> > > > > > >> that
> > > >> > > > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know
> > > >> > > > > > >> we can be their
> > > >> > > > > > solutions
> > > >> > > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech,
> > > >> > > > > > >> will come to read
> > > >> > > > > > about
> > > >> > > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
> > > >> > > > > > >> don't want those people be contaminated for old
> > > >> > > > > > >> Flash
> > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> Flex that could
> > > >> > > > > > make
> > > >> > > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to
> us.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we
> > > >> > > > > > >> decided
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> remove
> > > >> > > > > > "JS",
> > > >> > > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version
> inside
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Carlos
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
> > > >> > <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right
> > > >> > > > > > >>> after the
> > > >> > > > > > 'packaging'
> > > >> > > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss
> and
> > > >> > > > > > >>> vote on the
> > > >> > > > > > naming of
> > > >> > > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the
> > > >> > > > > > >>> following, which I think
> > > >> > > > > > is an
> > > >> > > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were
> > > >> > > > > > >>> discussing two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one
> > > >> > > > > > >>> designed for folks
> > > >> > > > migrating
> > > >> > > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > > >> > > > > > another
> > > >> > > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging
> > > >> > > > > > >>> branch I
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > most of
> > > >> > > > > > >>> that working.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package
> > > 'FlexJS'
> > > >> > > > > > >>> and the
> > > >> > > > > > other one
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by
> > > >> > > > > > >>> some folks to mean
> > > >> > > > > > "Royale
> > > >> > > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> > > >> > > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > > >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The
> project
> > > >> > > > > > >>> name would
> > > >> > > > > > definitely
> > > >> > > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts
> > > >> > > > > > >>> that denote target markets."
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS"
> > > >> > > > > > >>> off all but the legacy/migration package, which
> > > >> > > > > > >>> makes
> > > sense
> > > >> > > > > > >>> to me
> > > >> > as well.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project
> create
> > > >> > multiple
> > > >> > > > > > product (e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think
> > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >>> we should
> > > >> > > > > > name the
> > > >> > > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
> > > >> > > > > > >>> confusing to have
> > > >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then
> > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >>> other
> > > >> > > > > > products from
> > > >> > > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I
> > > >> > > > > > >>> suggest we
> > > >> > > > come
> > > >> > > > > > >>> up
> > > >> > > > > > with a
> > > >> > > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the
> > > >> > > > > > >>> functionality of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > various
> > > >> > > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off
> > > >> > > > > > >>> the top
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > >>> my
> > > >> > > > > > head, just
> > > >> > > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-
> wasm,
> > > etc.
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> What do you think?
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> EdB
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> --
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > >> > > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > > >> > > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > >> > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> --
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Director General
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> > > <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su
> > > >> > > > > > >> destinatario y puede
> > > >> > > > > > contener
> > > >> > > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha
> > > >> > > > > > >> recibido este mensaje
> > > >> > > > > > por
> > > >> > > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique
> > > >> > > > > > >> inmediatamente por esta misma
> > > >> > > > > > vía y
> > > >> > > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos
> > > >> > > > > > >> (15/1999), le
> > > >> > > > > > comunicamos
> > > >> > > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
> > > >> > > > > > >> responsable es
> > > >> > > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
> > > >> > > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar
> > > >> > > > > > >> la
> > > >> > > > prestación
> > > >> > > > > > del
> > > >> > > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> > > >> > > > > > >> derecho
> > > >> > de
> > > >> > > > > > acceso,
> > > >> > > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> > > >> > > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
> > > >> > > > > > nuestras
> > > >> > > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid
> > > >> > > > > > >> con la
> > > >> > > > > > documentación
> > > >> > > > > > >> necesaria.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > >> > > > skype: zarzycki10
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > >> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >> >
> > > >> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > >> > skype: zarzycki10
> > > >> >
> > > >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > >> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >
> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
> > > > skype: zarzycki10
> > > >
> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > >
> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > skype: zarzycki10
> > >
> > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > >
> > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> mobile: +48 880 859 557
> skype: zarzycki10
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Nicolas,
Validators are in branch feature/validation [1]. Nightly build is using
branch "develop", once someone finish work on validation it will be
probably merged to develop. - There is also option that you can yourself
build SDK and try it out.
As for your problems - if build produce correct JS output, I suggest raise
issue in Josh's repository in case those missing playerglobal.
Did you check this instruction [2] ?
[1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/feature/validation
[2]
https://github.com/BowlerHatLLC/vscode-nextgenas/wiki/Build-an-ActionScript-project-in-Visual-Studio-Code
Piotr
2017-10-05 17:15 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>:
> There was a mistake in my previous message : The path to the SDK is in
> settings.json, of course, not asconfig.json (working with VSCode).
>
> Well, I have changed the "nextgenas.sdk.framework" value (in
> settings.json) to point to the correct folder.
>
> Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
>
> I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
> The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
> (the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything
> inside it)
>
> Errors showing in "problems" panel :
>
> Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown
> Cannot open (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\
> playerglobal.swc
> Cannot open (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
>
>
> However, the "terminal" panel says that the project was successfully
> compiled and optimized.
> And in fact, the js-debug folder content seems correct.
>
> It seems that the build task is looking for playerglobal, although maybe
> it does not need it ???
> Maybe same problem for the "compiler.fxg-base-class" error ?
>
> When using SDK 0.8.0 there are no problems in the "problems" panel, but
> when I installed SDK 0.8.0, I launched the "installer.xml" ant task after
> unzipping the bin archive.
>
> Also, there is something that I do not understand : I was expecting to
> find the current version of Validator somewhere but I cannot find it
> (testing Validator was the reason for grabbing nightly build).
> I downloaded "apache-flex-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip". Is this the latest
> nightly build ?
>
> Did I miss something ?
>
> Another question : in the "tasks", I have an entry for "build-debug" but
> nothing for "build-release" ????? How do you launch a build-release task ?
> Should I create it myself ? What keys and values should be there ?
>
>
> Nicolas Granon
>
>
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 13:20
> > À : dev@royale.apache.org
> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> >
> > I think that version of JS Only SDK was tested with Flash Builder and
> > Moonshine IDE, but I'm not sure whether anyone is tried it to with
> > VSCode.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2017-10-05 13:17 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Actually not. I think you should be able use those version without
> > any
> > > additional steps.
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > 2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > >
> > >> Should I launch :
> > >> ant -f installer.xml
> > >> after unzipping n a folder ?
> > >>
> > >> Nicolas Granon
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > >> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > >> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55 À : dev@royale.apache.org
> > >> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> > >> >
> > >> > Good Luck! :)
> > >> >
> > >> > Piotr
> > >> >
> > >> > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > >> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > >> >
> > >> > > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
> > >> > > understanding
> > >> > > *before* I begin !
> > >> > > Thanks a lot
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Nicolas Granon
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > >> > > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > >> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À :
> > >> > > > dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re: [Royale]
> > >> > > > Using nightly builds
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Hi Nicolas,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of
> > >> > course
> > >> > > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config
> > >> > setup
> > >> > > > - targets= JSFlex.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Piotr
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > >> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> > >> > > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > >> > > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get
> > >> > > > > the -bin.zip file
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I
> > >> > > > > did for the last release 0.8)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder
> > >> > > > > (modify the asconfig file)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Is this the correct way ?
> > >> > > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> > >> > > > apacheflexbuild
> > >> > > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thank you,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Nicolas Granon
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Harbs
> > >> > > > > > [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre
> > >> > > > > > 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
> > >> > > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want
> > >> > > > > > different release packages.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components,
> > >> > > > > > they
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone
> > only
> > >> > > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components
> > >> > > > > > at all, they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and
> > >> > > > > > some typedef swcs. Different packages should probably have
> > >> > > > > > different compiler
> > >> > > > defaults.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The different release packages might have different names.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > >> > > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale
> > SDK
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > skip
> > >> > > > > > the JS part?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > -Mark K
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > >> > > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names
> > >> > > > > > >> (aka product
> > >> > > > > > names)
> > >> > > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > >> > > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler
> > >> > > > > > >> params
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > dictate
> > >> > > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > >> > > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one
> > >> > package
> > >> > > > > > >> that
> > >> > > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we
> > >> > > > > > >> can be their
> > >> > > > > > solutions
> > >> > > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will
> > >> > > > > > >> come to read
> > >> > > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
> > >> > > > > > >> don't want those people be contaminated for old Flash
> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> Flex that could
> > >> > > > > > make
> > >> > > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we
> > >> > > > > > >> decided
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > >> remove
> > >> > > > > > "JS",
> > >> > > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Thanks
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Carlos
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
> > >> > <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after
> > >> > > > > > >>> the
> > >> > > > > > 'packaging'
> > >> > > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and
> > >> > > > > > >>> vote on the
> > >> > > > > > naming of
> > >> > > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following,
> > >> > > > > > >>> which I think
> > >> > > > > > is an
> > >> > > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were
> > >> > > > > > >>> discussing two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one
> > >> > > > > > >>> designed for folks
> > >> > > > migrating
> > >> > > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > >> > > > > > another
> > >> > > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging
> > >> > > > > > >>> branch I
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > > most of
> > >> > > > > > >>> that working.
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package
> > 'FlexJS'
> > >> > > > > > >>> and the
> > >> > > > > > other one
> > >> > > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some
> > >> > > > > > >>> folks to mean
> > >> > > > > > "Royale
> > >> > > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> > >> > > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project
> > >> > > > > > >>> name would
> > >> > > > > > definitely
> > >> > > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that
> > >> > > > > > >>> denote target markets."
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off
> > >> > > > > > >>> all but the legacy/migration package, which makes
> > sense
> > >> > > > > > >>> to me
> > >> > as well.
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create
> > >> > multiple
> > >> > > > > > product (e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think
> > that
> > >> > > > > > >>> we should
> > >> > > > > > name the
> > >> > > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
> > >> > > > > > >>> confusing to have
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then
> > have
> > >> > > > > > >>> other
> > >> > > > > > products from
> > >> > > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I
> > >> > > > > > >>> suggest we
> > >> > > > come
> > >> > > > > > >>> up
> > >> > > > > > with a
> > >> > > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality
> > >> > > > > > >>> of
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > various
> > >> > > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the
> > >> > > > > > >>> top
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > >>> my
> > >> > > > > > head, just
> > >> > > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm,
> > etc.
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> What do you think?
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> EdB
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> --
> > >> > > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > >> > > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > >> > > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > >> > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> --
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Director General
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> > <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario
> > >> > > > > > >> y puede
> > >> > > > > > contener
> > >> > > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido
> > >> > > > > > >> este mensaje
> > >> > > > > > por
> > >> > > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
> > >> > > > > > >> por esta misma
> > >> > > > > > vía y
> > >> > > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos
> > >> > > > > > >> (15/1999), le
> > >> > > > > > comunicamos
> > >> > > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
> > >> > > > > > >> responsable es
> > >> > > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
> > >> > > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> > >> > > > prestación
> > >> > > > > > del
> > >> > > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> > >> > > > > > >> derecho
> > >> > de
> > >> > > > > > acceso,
> > >> > > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> > >> > > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
> > >> > > > > > nuestras
> > >> > > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con
> > >> > > > > > >> la
> > >> > > > > > documentación
> > >> > > > > > >> necesaria.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > >> > > > skype: zarzycki10
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> >
> > >> > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >> >
> > >> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > >> > skype: zarzycki10
> > >> >
> > >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > >> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > >> >
> > >> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
> > > skype: zarzycki10
> > >
> > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > >
> > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > skype: zarzycki10
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
RE: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>.
There was a mistake in my previous message : The path to the SDK is in settings.json, of course, not asconfig.json (working with VSCode).
Well, I have changed the "nextgenas.sdk.framework" value (in settings.json) to point to the correct folder.
Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
(the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything inside it)
Errors showing in "problems" panel :
Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown
Cannot open (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\playerglobal.swc
Cannot open (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
However, the "terminal" panel says that the project was successfully compiled and optimized.
And in fact, the js-debug folder content seems correct.
It seems that the build task is looking for playerglobal, although maybe it does not need it ???
Maybe same problem for the "compiler.fxg-base-class" error ?
When using SDK 0.8.0 there are no problems in the "problems" panel, but when I installed SDK 0.8.0, I launched the "installer.xml" ant task after unzipping the bin archive.
Also, there is something that I do not understand : I was expecting to find the current version of Validator somewhere but I cannot find it (testing Validator was the reason for grabbing nightly build).
I downloaded "apache-flex-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip". Is this the latest nightly build ?
Did I miss something ?
Another question : in the "tasks", I have an entry for "build-debug" but nothing for "build-release" ????? How do you launch a build-release task ?
Should I create it myself ? What keys and values should be there ?
Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 13:20
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>
> I think that version of JS Only SDK was tested with Flash Builder and
> Moonshine IDE, but I'm not sure whether anyone is tried it to with
> VSCode.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-10-05 13:17 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Actually not. I think you should be able use those version without
> any
> > additional steps.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> <ng...@idylog.com>:
> >
> >> Should I launch :
> >> ant -f installer.xml
> >> after unzipping n a folder ?
> >>
> >> Nicolas Granon
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Message d'origine-----
> >> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> >> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55 À : dev@royale.apache.org
> >> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> >> >
> >> > Good Luck! :)
> >> >
> >> > Piotr
> >> >
> >> > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> >> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> >> >
> >> > > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
> >> > > understanding
> >> > > *before* I begin !
> >> > > Thanks a lot
> >> > >
> >> > > Nicolas Granon
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> >> > > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> >> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À :
> >> > > > dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re: [Royale]
> >> > > > Using nightly builds
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hi Nicolas,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of
> >> > course
> >> > > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config
> >> > setup
> >> > > > - targets= JSFlex.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Piotr
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> >> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> >> > > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> >> > > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get
> >> > > > > the -bin.zip file
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I
> >> > > > > did for the last release 0.8)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder
> >> > > > > (modify the asconfig file)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Is this the correct way ?
> >> > > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> >> > > > apacheflexbuild
> >> > > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thank you,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Nicolas Granon
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- De : Harbs
> >> > > > > > [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre
> >> > > > > > 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
> >> > > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want
> >> > > > > > different release packages.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components,
> >> > > > > > they
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone
> only
> >> > > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components
> >> > > > > > at all, they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and
> >> > > > > > some typedef swcs. Different packages should probably have
> >> > > > > > different compiler
> >> > > > defaults.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The different release packages might have different names.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> >> > > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale
> SDK
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > skip
> >> > > > > > the JS part?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -Mark K
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> >> > > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> Hi,
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names
> >> > > > > > >> (aka product
> >> > > > > > names)
> >> > > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> >> > > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler
> >> > > > > > >> params
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > dictate
> >> > > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> >> > > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one
> >> > package
> >> > > > > > >> that
> >> > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we
> >> > > > > > >> can be their
> >> > > > > > solutions
> >> > > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will
> >> > > > > > >> come to read
> >> > > > > > about
> >> > > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
> >> > > > > > >> don't want those people be contaminated for old Flash
> or
> >> > > > > > >> Flex that could
> >> > > > > > make
> >> > > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we
> >> > > > > > >> decided
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > >> remove
> >> > > > > > "JS",
> >> > > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Thanks
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Carlos
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
> >> > <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>> Hi,
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after
> >> > > > > > >>> the
> >> > > > > > 'packaging'
> >> > > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and
> >> > > > > > >>> vote on the
> >> > > > > > naming of
> >> > > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following,
> >> > > > > > >>> which I think
> >> > > > > > is an
> >> > > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were
> >> > > > > > >>> discussing two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one
> >> > > > > > >>> designed for folks
> >> > > > migrating
> >> > > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> >> > > > > > another
> >> > > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging
> >> > > > > > >>> branch I
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > > most of
> >> > > > > > >>> that working.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package
> 'FlexJS'
> >> > > > > > >>> and the
> >> > > > > > other one
> >> > > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some
> >> > > > > > >>> folks to mean
> >> > > > > > "Royale
> >> > > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> >> > > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project
> >> > > > > > >>> name would
> >> > > > > > definitely
> >> > > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that
> >> > > > > > >>> denote target markets."
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off
> >> > > > > > >>> all but the legacy/migration package, which makes
> sense
> >> > > > > > >>> to me
> >> > as well.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create
> >> > multiple
> >> > > > > > product (e.g.
> >> > > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think
> that
> >> > > > > > >>> we should
> >> > > > > > name the
> >> > > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
> >> > > > > > >>> confusing to have
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then
> have
> >> > > > > > >>> other
> >> > > > > > products from
> >> > > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I
> >> > > > > > >>> suggest we
> >> > > > come
> >> > > > > > >>> up
> >> > > > > > with a
> >> > > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality
> >> > > > > > >>> of
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > various
> >> > > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the
> >> > > > > > >>> top
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > >>> my
> >> > > > > > head, just
> >> > > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm,
> etc.
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> What do you think?
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> EdB
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> --
> >> > > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> > > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> >> > > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >> > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> --
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Director General
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> <https://avant2.es/#video>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario
> >> > > > > > >> y puede
> >> > > > > > contener
> >> > > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido
> >> > > > > > >> este mensaje
> >> > > > > > por
> >> > > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
> >> > > > > > >> por esta misma
> >> > > > > > vía y
> >> > > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos
> >> > > > > > >> (15/1999), le
> >> > > > > > comunicamos
> >> > > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
> >> > > > > > >> responsable es
> >> > > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
> >> > > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> >> > > > prestación
> >> > > > > > del
> >> > > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> >> > > > > > >> derecho
> >> > de
> >> > > > > > acceso,
> >> > > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> >> > > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
> >> > > > > > nuestras
> >> > > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con
> >> > > > > > >> la
> >> > > > > > documentación
> >> > > > > > >> necesaria.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> >> > > >
> >> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> >> > > > skype: zarzycki10
> >> > > >
> >> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> >> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >> >
> >> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> >> > skype: zarzycki10
> >> >
> >> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> >> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >> >
> >> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
> > skype: zarzycki10
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> mobile: +48 880 859 557
> skype: zarzycki10
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
I think that version of JS Only SDK was tested with Flash Builder and
Moonshine IDE, but I'm not sure whether anyone is tried it to with VSCode.
Piotr
2017-10-05 13:17 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
> Actually not. I think you should be able use those version without any
> additional steps.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>:
>
>> Should I launch :
>> ant -f installer.xml
>> after unzipping n a folder ?
>>
>> Nicolas Granon
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
>> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55
>> > À : dev@royale.apache.org
>> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>> >
>> > Good Luck! :)
>> >
>> > Piotr
>> >
>> > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
>> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
>> >
>> > > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
>> > > understanding
>> > > *before* I begin !
>> > > Thanks a lot
>> > >
>> > > Nicolas Granon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
>> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À : dev@royale.apache.org;
>> > > > ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Nicolas,
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of
>> > course
>> > > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config
>> > setup
>> > > > - targets= JSFlex.
>> > > >
>> > > > Piotr
>> > > >
>> > > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
>> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
>> > > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
>> > > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the
>> > > > > -bin.zip file
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did
>> > > > > for the last release 0.8)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder
>> > > > > (modify the asconfig file)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is this the correct way ?
>> > > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
>> > > > apacheflexbuild
>> > > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thank you,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Nicolas Granon
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
>> > > > > > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
>> > > > > > octobre 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
>> > > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want
>> > > > > > different release packages.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone only
>> > > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components at
>> > > > > > all, they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and some
>> > > > > > typedef swcs. Different packages should probably have different
>> > > > > > compiler
>> > > > defaults.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The different release packages might have different names.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
>> > > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and
>> > > > skip
>> > > > > > the JS part?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -Mark K
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
>> > > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> Hi,
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka
>> > > > > > >> product
>> > > > > > names)
>> > > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
>> > > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler
>> > > > > > >> params
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > dictate
>> > > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
>> > > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one
>> > package
>> > > > > > >> that
>> > > > > > could
>> > > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be
>> > > > > > >> their
>> > > > > > solutions
>> > > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come
>> > > > > > >> to read
>> > > > > > about
>> > > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
>> > > > > > >> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that
>> > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > make
>> > > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided
>> > to
>> > > > > > >> remove
>> > > > > > "JS",
>> > > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Thanks
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Carlos
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
>> > <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> Hi,
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
>> > > > > > 'packaging'
>> > > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on
>> > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > > naming of
>> > > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which
>> > > > > > >>> I think
>> > > > > > is an
>> > > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing
>> > > > > > >>> two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks
>> > > > migrating
>> > > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
>> > > > > > another
>> > > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > most of
>> > > > > > >>> that working.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS'
>> > > > > > >>> and the
>> > > > > > other one
>> > > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks
>> > > > > > >>> to mean
>> > > > > > "Royale
>> > > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
>> > > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name
>> > > > > > >>> would
>> > > > > > definitely
>> > > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote
>> > > > > > >>> target markets."
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all
>> > > > > > >>> but the legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me
>> > as well.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create
>> > multiple
>> > > > > > product (e.g.
>> > > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we
>> > > > > > >>> should
>> > > > > > name the
>> > > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing
>> > > > > > >>> to have
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then have
>> > > > > > >>> other
>> > > > > > products from
>> > > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we
>> > > > come
>> > > > > > >>> up
>> > > > > > with a
>> > > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of
>> > the
>> > > > > > various
>> > > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top
>> > of
>> > > > > > >>> my
>> > > > > > head, just
>> > > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> What do you think?
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> EdB
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> --
>> > > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> > > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
>> > > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> --
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Director General
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y
>> > > > > > >> puede
>> > > > > > contener
>> > > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
>> > > > > > >> mensaje
>> > > > > > por
>> > > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por
>> > > > > > >> esta misma
>> > > > > > vía y
>> > > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999),
>> > > > > > >> le
>> > > > > > comunicamos
>> > > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
>> > > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
>> > > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
>> > > > prestación
>> > > > > > del
>> > > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho
>> > de
>> > > > > > acceso,
>> > > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
>> > > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
>> > > > > > nuestras
>> > > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
>> > > > > > documentación
>> > > > > > >> necesaria.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
>> > > >
>> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> > > > skype: zarzycki10
>> > > >
>> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>> > > >
>> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Piotr Zarzycki
>> >
>> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
>> > skype: zarzycki10
>> >
>> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
>> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>> >
>> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
> skype: zarzycki10
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Actually not. I think you should be able use those version without any
additional steps.
Piotr
2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>:
> Should I launch :
> ant -f installer.xml
> after unzipping n a folder ?
>
> Nicolas Granon
>
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55
> > À : dev@royale.apache.org
> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> >
> > Good Luck! :)
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> >
> > > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
> > > understanding
> > > *before* I begin !
> > > Thanks a lot
> > >
> > > Nicolas Granon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À : dev@royale.apache.org;
> > > > ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> > > >
> > > > Hi Nicolas,
> > > >
> > > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of
> > course
> > > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config
> > setup
> > > > - targets= JSFlex.
> > > >
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> > > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> > > > >
> > > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the
> > > > > -bin.zip file
> > > > >
> > > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did
> > > > > for the last release 0.8)
> > > > >
> > > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder
> > > > > (modify the asconfig file)
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this the correct way ?
> > > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> > > > apacheflexbuild
> > > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nicolas Granon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
> > > > > > octobre 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
> > > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want
> > > > > > different release packages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they
> > > > have
> > > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone only
> > > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components at
> > > > > > all, they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and some
> > > > > > typedef swcs. Different packages should probably have different
> > > > > > compiler
> > > > defaults.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The different release packages might have different names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and
> > > > skip
> > > > > > the JS part?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Mark K
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka
> > > > > > >> product
> > > > > > names)
> > > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler
> > > > > > >> params
> > > > to
> > > > > > dictate
> > > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one
> > package
> > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be
> > > > > > >> their
> > > > > > solutions
> > > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come
> > > > > > >> to read
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> > > > > > >> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided
> > to
> > > > > > >> remove
> > > > > > "JS",
> > > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Carlos
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
> > <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> > > > > > 'packaging'
> > > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > naming of
> > > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which
> > > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > > is an
> > > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing
> > > > > > >>> two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks
> > > > migrating
> > > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I
> > > > have
> > > > > > most of
> > > > > > >>> that working.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS'
> > > > > > >>> and the
> > > > > > other one
> > > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks
> > > > > > >>> to mean
> > > > > > "Royale
> > > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> > > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name
> > > > > > >>> would
> > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote
> > > > > > >>> target markets."
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all
> > > > > > >>> but the legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me
> > as well.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create
> > multiple
> > > > > > product (e.g.
> > > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we
> > > > > > >>> should
> > > > > > name the
> > > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing
> > > > > > >>> to have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then have
> > > > > > >>> other
> > > > > > products from
> > > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we
> > > > come
> > > > > > >>> up
> > > > > > with a
> > > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of
> > the
> > > > > > various
> > > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top
> > of
> > > > > > >>> my
> > > > > > head, just
> > > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> What do you think?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> EdB
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Director General
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y
> > > > > > >> puede
> > > > > > contener
> > > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
> > > > > > >> mensaje
> > > > > > por
> > > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por
> > > > > > >> esta misma
> > > > > > vía y
> > > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999),
> > > > > > >> le
> > > > > > comunicamos
> > > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> > > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
> > > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> > > > prestación
> > > > > > del
> > > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho
> > de
> > > > > > acceso,
> > > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> > > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
> > > > > > nuestras
> > > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> > > > > > documentación
> > > > > > >> necesaria.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >
> > > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > > skype: zarzycki10
> > > >
> > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > > >
> > > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > skype: zarzycki10
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
RE: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>.
Should I launch :
ant -f installer.xml
after unzipping n a folder ?
Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>
> Good Luck! :)
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> <ng...@idylog.com>:
>
> > No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct
> > understanding
> > *before* I begin !
> > Thanks a lot
> >
> > Nicolas Granon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À : dev@royale.apache.org;
> > > ngranon@idylog.com Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> > >
> > > Hi Nicolas,
> > >
> > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of
> course
> > > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config
> setup
> > > - targets= JSFlex.
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> > >
> > > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> > > >
> > > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> > > >
> > > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> > > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> > > >
> > > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the
> > > > -bin.zip file
> > > >
> > > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did
> > > > for the last release 0.8)
> > > >
> > > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder
> > > > (modify the asconfig file)
> > > >
> > > > Is this the correct way ?
> > > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> > > apacheflexbuild
> > > > site ? (compiler ?...)
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > >
> > > > Nicolas Granon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
> > > > > octobre 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re:
> > > > > [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> > > > >
> > > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want
> > > > > different release packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they
> > > have
> > > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone only
> > > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components at
> > > > > all, they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and some
> > > > > typedef swcs. Different packages should probably have different
> > > > > compiler
> > > defaults.
> > > > >
> > > > > The different release packages might have different names.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and
> > > skip
> > > > > the JS part?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Mark K
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Hi,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka
> > > > > >> product
> > > > > names)
> > > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler
> > > > > >> params
> > > to
> > > > > dictate
> > > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one
> package
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > could
> > > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be
> > > > > >> their
> > > > > solutions
> > > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come
> > > > > >> to read
> > > > > about
> > > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> > > > > >> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > make
> > > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided
> to
> > > > > >> remove
> > > > > "JS",
> > > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Carlos
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin
> <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> > > > > 'packaging'
> > > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > naming of
> > > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which
> > > > > >>> I think
> > > > > is an
> > > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing
> > > > > >>> two IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks
> > > migrating
> > > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > > > > another
> > > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I
> > > have
> > > > > most of
> > > > > >>> that working.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS'
> > > > > >>> and the
> > > > > other one
> > > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks
> > > > > >>> to mean
> > > > > "Royale
> > > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> > > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name
> > > > > >>> would
> > > > > definitely
> > > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote
> > > > > >>> target markets."
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all
> > > > > >>> but the legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me
> as well.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create
> multiple
> > > > > product (e.g.
> > > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we
> > > > > >>> should
> > > > > name the
> > > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing
> > > > > >>> to have
> > > > > a
> > > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then have
> > > > > >>> other
> > > > > products from
> > > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we
> > > come
> > > > > >>> up
> > > > > with a
> > > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of
> the
> > > > > various
> > > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top
> of
> > > > > >>> my
> > > > > head, just
> > > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> What do you think?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> EdB
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Director General
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y
> > > > > >> puede
> > > > > contener
> > > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
> > > > > >> mensaje
> > > > > por
> > > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por
> > > > > >> esta misma
> > > > > vía y
> > > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999),
> > > > > >> le
> > > > > comunicamos
> > > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> > > > > CODEOSCOPIC
> > > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> > > prestación
> > > > > del
> > > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho
> de
> > > > > acceso,
> > > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> > > > > >> dirigiéndose a
> > > > > nuestras
> > > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> > > > > documentación
> > > > > >> necesaria.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > > skype: zarzycki10
> > >
> > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> > >
> > > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> mobile: +48 880 859 557
> skype: zarzycki10
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Good Luck! :)
Piotr
2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>:
> No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct understanding
> *before* I begin !
> Thanks a lot
>
> Nicolas Granon
>
>
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59
> > À : dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com
> > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
> >
> > Hi Nicolas,
> >
> > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of course
> > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config setup -
> > targets= JSFlex.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> > <ng...@idylog.com>:
> >
> > > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> > >
> > > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> > >
> > > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> > > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> > >
> > > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the
> > > -bin.zip file
> > >
> > > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for
> > > the last release 0.8)
> > >
> > > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify
> > > the asconfig file)
> > >
> > > Is this the correct way ?
> > > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> > apacheflexbuild
> > > site ? (compiler ?...)
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Nicolas Granon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
> > > > octobre 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS]
> > > > project vs. project name
> > > >
> > > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> > > > release packages.
> > > >
> > > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they
> > have
> > > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone only
> > > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all,
> > > > they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and some typedef
> > > > swcs. Different packages should probably have different compiler
> > defaults.
> > > >
> > > > The different release packages might have different names.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and
> > skip
> > > > the JS part?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Mark K
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka
> > > > >> product
> > > > names)
> > > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params
> > to
> > > > dictate
> > > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package
> > > > >> that
> > > > could
> > > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be
> > > > >> their
> > > > solutions
> > > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to
> > > > >> read
> > > > about
> > > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't want
> > > > >> those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could
> > > > make
> > > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to
> > > > >> remove
> > > > "JS",
> > > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carlos
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> > > > 'packaging'
> > > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> > > > naming of
> > > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I
> > > > >>> think
> > > > is an
> > > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> > > > >>> IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks
> > migrating
> > > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > > > another
> > > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I
> > have
> > > > most of
> > > > >>> that working.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and
> > > > >>> the
> > > > other one
> > > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to
> > > > >>> mean
> > > > "Royale
> > > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> > > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > > > and
> > > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
> > > > definitely
> > > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote
> > > > >>> target markets."
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but
> > > > >>> the legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> > > > product (e.g.
> > > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we
> > > > >>> should
> > > > name the
> > > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to
> > > > >>> have
> > > > a
> > > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then have other
> > > > products from
> > > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we
> > come
> > > > >>> up
> > > > with a
> > > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the
> > > > various
> > > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my
> > > > head, just
> > > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What do you think?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> EdB
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Director General
> > > > >>
> > > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> > > > contener
> > > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
> > > > >> mensaje
> > > > por
> > > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta
> > > > >> misma
> > > > vía y
> > > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> > > > comunicamos
> > > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> > > > CODEOSCOPIC
> > > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> > prestación
> > > > del
> > > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de
> > > > acceso,
> > > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose
> > > > >> a
> > > > nuestras
> > > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> > > > documentación
> > > > >> necesaria.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > mobile: +48 880 859 557
> > skype: zarzycki10
> >
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
> >
> > GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
RE: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>.
No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct understanding *before* I begin !
Thanks a lot
Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59
> À : dev@royale.apache.org; ngranon@idylog.com
> Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of course
> since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config setup -
> targets= JSFlex.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> <ng...@idylog.com>:
>
> > I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
> >
> > Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
> >
> > 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> > cloudapp.net:8080/job/
> >
> > 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> > 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the
> > -bin.zip file
> >
> > 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for
> > the last release 0.8)
> >
> > 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify
> > the asconfig file)
> >
> > Is this the correct way ?
> > Is there anything else that I should also get from the
> apacheflexbuild
> > site ? (compiler ?...)
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Nicolas Granon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 4
> > > octobre 2017 15:37 À : dev@royale.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS]
> > > project vs. project name
> > >
> > > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> > > release packages.
> > >
> > > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they
> have
> > > no need to install anything Flash related. For someone only
> > > interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all,
> > > they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and some typedef
> > > swcs. Different packages should probably have different compiler
> defaults.
> > >
> > > The different release packages might have different names.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and
> skip
> > > the JS part?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Mark K
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka
> > > >> product
> > > names)
> > > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params
> to
> > > dictate
> > > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package
> > > >> that
> > > could
> > > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > > >>
> > > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be
> > > >> their
> > > solutions
> > > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to
> > > >> read
> > > about
> > > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't want
> > > >> those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could
> > > make
> > > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > > >>
> > > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to
> > > >> remove
> > > "JS",
> > > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > > >>
> > > >> That's my 2ctn
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >>
> > > >> Carlos
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> > > 'packaging'
> > > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> > > naming of
> > > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I
> > > >>> think
> > > is an
> > > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> > > >>> IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks
> migrating
> > > >>> from Apache Flex and
> > > another
> > > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I
> have
> > > most of
> > > >>> that working.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and
> > > >>> the
> > > other one
> > > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to
> > > >>> mean
> > > "Royale
> > > >>> for JS". The package names would be
> > > >>> apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > > and
> > > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
> > > definitely
> > > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote
> > > >>> target markets."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but
> > > >>> the legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> > > product (e.g.
> > > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we
> > > >>> should
> > > name the
> > > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to
> > > >>> have
> > > a
> > > >>> product with the same name as the project and then have other
> > > products from
> > > >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we
> come
> > > >>> up
> > > with a
> > > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the
> > > various
> > > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my
> > > head, just
> > > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What do you think?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> EdB
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > > >>>
> > > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Carlos Rovira
> > > >>
> > > >> Director General
> > > >>
> > > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> > > contener
> > > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
> > > >> mensaje
> > > por
> > > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta
> > > >> misma
> > > vía y
> > > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > > >>
> > > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> > > comunicamos
> > > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> > > CODEOSCOPIC
> > > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> prestación
> > > del
> > > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de
> > > acceso,
> > > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose
> > > >> a
> > > nuestras
> > > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> > > documentación
> > > >> necesaria.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> mobile: +48 880 859 557
> skype: zarzycki10
>
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Nicolas,
I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of course since
this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config setup -targets=
JSFlex.
Piotr
2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>:
> I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds".
>
> Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
>
> 1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.
> cloudapp.net:8080/job/
>
> 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder
> 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the -bin.zip
> file
>
> 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for the
> last release 0.8)
>
> 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify the
> asconfig file)
>
> Is this the correct way ?
> Is there anything else that I should also get from the apacheflexbuild
> site ? (compiler ?...)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nicolas Granon
>
>
>
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]
> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 15:37
> > À : dev@royale.apache.org
> > Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name
> >
> > Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different
> > release packages.
> >
> > For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they have no
> > need to install anything Flash related. For someone only interested in
> > outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all, they wouldn’t need
> > much more than the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages
> > should probably have different compiler defaults.
> >
> > The different release packages might have different names.
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler
> > <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and skip
> > the JS part?
> > >
> > >
> > > -Mark K
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira
> > > <ca...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> > names)
> > >> and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > >> As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> > dictate
> > >> if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > >> So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> > could
> > >> output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > >>
> > >> People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> > solutions
> > >> Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read
> > about
> > >> Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> > >> want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could
> > make
> > >> them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > >>
> > >> So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> > "JS",
> > >> we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > >>
> > >> That's my 2ctn
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >>
> > >> Carlos
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> > 'packaging'
> > >>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> > naming of
> > >>> the product(s) of this project.
> > >>>
> > >>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think
> > is an
> > >>> excellent suggestion:
> > >>>
> > >>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> > >>> IDE-friendly release
> > >>> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and
> > another
> > >>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have
> > most of
> > >>> that working.
> > >>>
> > >>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> > other one
> > >>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean
> > "Royale
> > >>> for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> > and
> > >>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
> > definitely
> > >>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> > >>> markets."
> > >>>
> > >>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> > >>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> > product (e.g.
> > >>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> > name the
> > >>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have
> > a
> > >>> product with the same name as the project and then have other
> > products from
> > >>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
> > with a
> > >>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the
> > various
> > >>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my
> > head, just
> > >>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> What do you think?
> > >>>
> > >>> EdB
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Ix Multimedia Software
> > >>>
> > >>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > >>> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > >>>
> > >>> T. 06-51952295
> > >>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> > >>
> > >> Carlos Rovira
> > >>
> > >> Director General
> > >>
> > >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >>
> > >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> > contener
> > >> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje
> > por
> > >> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma
> > vía y
> > >> proceda a su destrucción.
> > >>
> > >> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> > comunicamos
> > >> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> > CODEOSCOPIC
> > >> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación
> > del
> > >> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de
> > acceso,
> > >> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> > nuestras
> > >> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> > documentación
> > >> necesaria.
>
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21