You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> on 2016/05/05 08:35:00 UTC
[FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Hi,
I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
Chris
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
> so I had a look and could see the downloads for the utility jar are done
by going into the src/test/resources directory of the compiler and calling
an Ant script called download.xml there ... WTF? You call that maintainable?
downloads.xml is called automatically by the main Ant build. You shouldn't
need to call it manually, and most people will never do that. If you needed
to call it manually, for some reason, it sounds like a bug.
I'm guessing what went wrong is that you had some of the downloads already,
but not all. If I remember correctly, when I added the Node.js externs, I
discovered that when download.xml saw that some specific files were already
present, it assumed that everything was downloaded. So if one download was
actually missing, it remained missing. I'm sure that can be fixed easily.
- Josh
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
>
> Ok so here we are again ... you claim to know how Maven works but are
> unwilling to learn what maven is. So we keep on having these unproductive
> discussions like one of those bar-talks where everyone knows things better
> without actually knowing anything. I guess everyone here that knows Maven
> will probably know Ant and he will probably support my efforts. You don't
> know a thing about Maven but keep on talking as if you do.
>
> Yes Maven follows the principal of one primary artifact per module, but
> ist the "primary" you should be paying attention to.
> I have setup Maven to build both the externs as well as the swcs from one
> and the same code-base in one run of the build. And that's a totally valid
> Maven strategy. The problem I am having is that the magic Ant build seems
> to be producing different output than mine, even if I match the input to
> the compilers to the bit (I actually tried that), so I guess there is other
> magic involved, that I simply can't see. Some system properties, that
> configure things differently.
>
> I for my part don't trust builds I don't understand and I don't understand
> the Ant build and judging from your comments on my last mail you can't
> explain what all of the knobs and levers in the build actually are needed
> for. I wanted to build Falcon yesterday, but couldn't because it was
> missing apache-commons-io ... so I had a look and could see the downloads
> for the utility jar are done by going into the src/test/resources directory
> of the compiler and calling an Ant script called download.xml there ...
> WTF? You call that maintainable?
>
> I don't want to contribute to a project that I have to figure out how to
> build every 2 or 3 weeks ... I don't want to contribute to a project, where
> I have something working on one day, the next day nothing works because a
> download was added and the bloody download scripts don't know to update. So
> I start doing "ant wipe-all" + "ant all" all the time. Thinking in Maven
> terms this is like deleting the Maven local repo every time. I've wasted
> far too many days of productive time with this build out of hell (As we
> inherited this I probably won't offend anyone in this project). To me this
> project feels like it's having a detached head. There is a hand full of
> people that keep on hacking and the others are waiting for stuff to happen,
> because they don't want to get run over by problems with the build or they
> simply don't understand how to contribute. I think we have a lot of people
> here (We are actually the 10th biggest ASF project judging from the
> committer numbers) that are too afraid to get started. I want to get them
> into the boat.
>
> So as long as I don't hear a meaningful number of others stepping up ...
> I'll step down and start living a life again ... far too many friends I
> didn't have a beer with cause I was working on Flex, far to many days my
> girlfriend was mad at me, cause I sat at the computer the whole day trying
> to get this one thing finished.
>
> I'm sick of it and so I'll check where to put a sensible amount of effort
> into other projects at ApacheCon.
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016 18:22:26
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> There is a phrase: "right tool for the job".
>
> At the time we migrated Adobe JIRA to Apache JIRA, Maven support for Flex
> was easily the most voted-on issue. I don't follow the Maven community so
> I don't know if other tools have become more popular, but I otherwise have
> no reason to doubt that if FlexJS gets traction within the same set of
> customers, Maven will again be sought after.
>
> So, I am totally in favor of trying to get our JARs and SWCs up in Maven
> Central so that folks can develop applications the Maven way, and I have
> postponed feature development to help make it happen.
>
> But whether we use Maven for every step of generating the JARs and SWCs is
> the actual question, and I am no longer clear that Maven is the right tool
> for every step of that job. Yes, you can extend Maven with Mojos to make
> it work, but it isn't clear to me that the investment in these Mojos are
> worth it when Ant can already do it. IMO, a Mojo is worth the investment
> in writing and maintaining when there is going to be lots of re-use of it,
> so that's why FlexMojos is worth it. AIUI, FlexMojos makes Maven
> understand ActionScript and SWCs instead of just Java and JARs. But Mojos
> just to insert or replace text seems like a lot of work when an Ant script
> already exists to do that work.
>
> Further, Maven seems to expect applications to be written in a particular
> pattern: single-source to single-target. The FlexJS framework is
> single-source to multi-target via conditional compilation. We've tried 3
> different source code patterns so far (separate AS and JS folders,
> separate folders for platform vs multi platform, single folder with
> conditional compile) and I believe that conditional compilation is getting
> us the best code productivity. For example, last night I was able to fix
> a bug by touching one file instead of two. Wikipedia says that
> conditional compilation is often used for multi-platform, so I using
> conditional compilation is a valid approach. I'm open to other code
> management ideas, but separating the code in order to make the build
> system happy doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Doing the refactoring to try to get Maven to work has been a good thing.
> I think there is more consistency in the organization of the code and
> fewer if any circularities in the build order. But what we are really
> trying to do in FlexJS is get some library developers to abstract away the
> differences between platforms so that application developers can have a
> single-source to single-target. And those library developers are
> currently finding that single-source to multi-target is the most efficient
> way to develop those abstractions.
>
> When I think of it that way, I think we should use both Ant and Maven. I
> still haven't heard feedback on the idea of creating an "externs" folder
> as a sibling to the "frameworks" folder which, independent of Maven, might
> help us manage doing library abstraction development in IDEs. That would
> give you a fresh set of pom.xml files to work with, but all of the source
> would be outside of the project folder. Which Ant is totally fine with,
> but is not quite what Maven had in mind.
>
> So, why not just have Maven call Ant to do the dirty work until the
> results are essentially single-source to single-target? Then there aren't
> as many, if any, custom Mojos to maintain. Maybe Ant is the right tool
> for taking our conditional compilation code base and generating output so
> Maven can do the rest. I would imagine that's why Maven supports calls to
> Ant.
>
> The proposal is, if we build out an "externs" sibling to "frameworks",
> then I think the folder structure would look like this:
>
> externs/projects/Core/.project - FlashBuilder project for building
> externs/projects/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
> -There would not be a src/main/flex folder in externs/projects/Core.
> -externs/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml would have
> relative paths back to frameworks/projects/Core
>
>
> frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/core/Application.as,
> etc.
> frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-as-config.xml
>
> Produces:
> Frameworks/projects/Core/target/Core.swc
>
> Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> frameworks/projects/Core/target/generated-sources/flexjs folder
> Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> externs/project/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
>
> I think the Maven build would use Ant to do the generated-sources and
> XXX-externs.swc for all of the other externs/projects before Ant or Maven
> builds final SWCs by going through the frameworks/projects.
> Maven could also do these steps if it ok with having the source outside
> the project folder.
>
>
> When that is done, I think Maven should have an easier time producing the
> final SWC because inside frameworks/projects/Core is a set of source files
> and generated files that have a single output (Core.swc) which is the only
> artifact our application developer customers need. We should consider
> deploying the Core-externs.swc for folks creating third-party libraries
> that rely on our libraries but would expect less demand for the
> -externs.swcs.
>
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
>
> On 5/5/16, 6:26 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Chris,
> >
> >I'm following your iteration (silently in order to not introduce noise),
> >and I think you're doing a great work. I know about others here very
> >interested in this stuff too.
> >
> >Regarding Maven things, people working with maven knows how much pain is
> >to
> >make a working maven setup correctly, and it needs too much effort, but as
> >things gets working, it's an invaluable tool. I think this is the way to
> >go, and even, If I need to choose, I'll vote for maven over ant, dropping
> >ant support. But this should be the way of thinking for others
> >contributing
> >to FlexJS. I don't know what others think about maven support and if they
> >know about the benefits. It's like the benefits of GIT over SVN, it was a
> >bit painful to jump over GIT, but I think people looking back in the past
> >could appreciate the great benefits of GIT on this project (hopefuly) :)
> >
> >Thanks for your effort, hope you decide to keep the great work
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >2016-05-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
> >
> >> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
> >>
> >> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I
> >>don't
> >> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an
> >>insane
> >> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite
> >>time
> >> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
> >> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall
> >>impression
> >> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time
> >>in
> >> other projects.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> >> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> >> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >>
> >> Got it.
> >>
> >> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
> >> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
> >>
> >> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to
> >>build
> >> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the
> >>flexjs
> >> code with all these define blocks
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> >> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >> >
> >> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
> >> >
> >> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
> >> languages (such as ActionScript)?
> >> >
> >> > Harbs
> >> >
> >> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz
> >><ch...@c-ware.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you
> >>can
> >> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
> >>clearly
> >> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
> >> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Carlos Rovira
> >Director General
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >http://www.avant2.es
> >
> >
> >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: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
2016-05-05 20:24 GMT+02:00 Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>:
> but if it means that onboarding new
> contributors (including those who have never used Maven before) is quick
> and easy,
The pain is to get to the maven setup done. Once in that state, it's so
easy to contribute, since you only have to be worried about creating your
code and, if there's more dependencies, add the node needed to pom.xml (of
course dependency must be in a maven repository ;)).
All people could build with no effort, only executing something like "mvn
install" (or close to it) and no relying in your computer setup
(variables,...).
So, with no doubt ANT is to MAVEN like SVN was to GIT, a thing of the past,
and people going forward never goes back again.
--
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.avant2.es
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: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Josh Tynjala <jo...@gmail.com>.
Maybe we need to fully embrace Maven and drop Ant completely. I have zero
interest in learning Maven, but if it means that onboarding new
contributors (including those who have never used Maven before) is quick
and easy, I'll happily figure it out. If it means we can stop with these
constant threads about builds every week, and more people can start working
on the actual SDK, let's just do it. Someone tell me how I can contribute
to the effort. Let's make it happen in days rather than weeks. For the sake
of all of our time, let's not drag this out.
- Josh
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Carlos Rovira <
carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I understand the point behind Chris words, I must said I feel a bit like
> that in the past. This project has many dark corners that make people
> trying to jump in be repeled due to complexity that is impossible to manage
> without dedicating lots of hours (or be the one that code it). In my case,
> to be honest, that complexity in addition to having to come back to manage
> my company makes me unable to contribute but in a very soft way (side
> things) or follow this project as I can.
>
> I think Chris puts on the table an important point that should be take care
> of if we all want to get FlexJS, not only be maven driven, but a project
> that could be gain traction cause it could be learned easily for people
> coming. That's our first great problem...
>
> I stated time ago that one of the problems was complexity. Many
> configurations, FlexSDK dependency (that I supposed was already removed by
> Alex, but it's not), lots of ants with lots of targets...)
>
> Last time I tried to compile and test source code was on 0.6 release, and
> after 3 days I couldn't get it working (even with Alex's support). Maybe
> was my computer, maybe something on the project, don't know. I want to try
> 0.7 as I get today some time to see if I get the same result, but all this
> means, I never get to a point where I can do something valuable, and that's
> in part due my few time, but in other part, due to the complexity of all
> pieces needed and their dependencies.
>
> Maven is complex to setup and requires lots of effort and discipline to get
> setup in the right way. The only way do this is embracing the right way
> (Chris's way) to do it with all the consequences (lots of changes and
> refactors, lots of time and energy invested,...). Is all or nothing, but if
> you get to the check point, then all will be more organized and
> contributors making new things, couldn't that without wiring it up
> correctly all the way through maven. So it will reduce hacks and things
> done in a "bad way"...
>
> I think is time to decide if we want maven (with all implications) or drop
> it to let Chris live again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-05-05 19:30 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
>
> >
> > Ok so here we are again ... you claim to know how Maven works but are
> > unwilling to learn what maven is. So we keep on having these unproductive
> > discussions like one of those bar-talks where everyone knows things
> better
> > without actually knowing anything. I guess everyone here that knows Maven
> > will probably know Ant and he will probably support my efforts. You don't
> > know a thing about Maven but keep on talking as if you do.
> >
> > Yes Maven follows the principal of one primary artifact per module, but
> > ist the "primary" you should be paying attention to.
> > I have setup Maven to build both the externs as well as the swcs from one
> > and the same code-base in one run of the build. And that's a totally
> valid
> > Maven strategy. The problem I am having is that the magic Ant build seems
> > to be producing different output than mine, even if I match the input to
> > the compilers to the bit (I actually tried that), so I guess there is
> other
> > magic involved, that I simply can't see. Some system properties, that
> > configure things differently.
> >
> > I for my part don't trust builds I don't understand and I don't
> understand
> > the Ant build and judging from your comments on my last mail you can't
> > explain what all of the knobs and levers in the build actually are needed
> > for. I wanted to build Falcon yesterday, but couldn't because it was
> > missing apache-commons-io ... so I had a look and could see the downloads
> > for the utility jar are done by going into the src/test/resources
> directory
> > of the compiler and calling an Ant script called download.xml there ...
> > WTF? You call that maintainable?
> >
> > I don't want to contribute to a project that I have to figure out how to
> > build every 2 or 3 weeks ... I don't want to contribute to a project,
> where
> > I have something working on one day, the next day nothing works because a
> > download was added and the bloody download scripts don't know to update.
> So
> > I start doing "ant wipe-all" + "ant all" all the time. Thinking in Maven
> > terms this is like deleting the Maven local repo every time. I've wasted
> > far too many days of productive time with this build out of hell (As we
> > inherited this I probably won't offend anyone in this project). To me
> this
> > project feels like it's having a detached head. There is a hand full of
> > people that keep on hacking and the others are waiting for stuff to
> happen,
> > because they don't want to get run over by problems with the build or
> they
> > simply don't understand how to contribute. I think we have a lot of
> people
> > here (We are actually the 10th biggest ASF project judging from the
> > committer numbers) that are too afraid to get started. I want to get them
> > into the boat.
> >
> > So as long as I don't hear a meaningful number of others stepping up ...
> > I'll step down and start living a life again ... far too many friends I
> > didn't have a beer with cause I was working on Flex, far to many days my
> > girlfriend was mad at me, cause I sat at the computer the whole day
> trying
> > to get this one thing finished.
> >
> > I'm sick of it and so I'll check where to put a sensible amount of effort
> > into other projects at ApacheCon.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016 18:22:26
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >
> > There is a phrase: "right tool for the job".
> >
> > At the time we migrated Adobe JIRA to Apache JIRA, Maven support for Flex
> > was easily the most voted-on issue. I don't follow the Maven community
> so
> > I don't know if other tools have become more popular, but I otherwise
> have
> > no reason to doubt that if FlexJS gets traction within the same set of
> > customers, Maven will again be sought after.
> >
> > So, I am totally in favor of trying to get our JARs and SWCs up in Maven
> > Central so that folks can develop applications the Maven way, and I have
> > postponed feature development to help make it happen.
> >
> > But whether we use Maven for every step of generating the JARs and SWCs
> is
> > the actual question, and I am no longer clear that Maven is the right
> tool
> > for every step of that job. Yes, you can extend Maven with Mojos to make
> > it work, but it isn't clear to me that the investment in these Mojos are
> > worth it when Ant can already do it. IMO, a Mojo is worth the investment
> > in writing and maintaining when there is going to be lots of re-use of
> it,
> > so that's why FlexMojos is worth it. AIUI, FlexMojos makes Maven
> > understand ActionScript and SWCs instead of just Java and JARs. But
> Mojos
> > just to insert or replace text seems like a lot of work when an Ant
> script
> > already exists to do that work.
> >
> > Further, Maven seems to expect applications to be written in a particular
> > pattern: single-source to single-target. The FlexJS framework is
> > single-source to multi-target via conditional compilation. We've tried 3
> > different source code patterns so far (separate AS and JS folders,
> > separate folders for platform vs multi platform, single folder with
> > conditional compile) and I believe that conditional compilation is
> getting
> > us the best code productivity. For example, last night I was able to fix
> > a bug by touching one file instead of two. Wikipedia says that
> > conditional compilation is often used for multi-platform, so I using
> > conditional compilation is a valid approach. I'm open to other code
> > management ideas, but separating the code in order to make the build
> > system happy doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> > Doing the refactoring to try to get Maven to work has been a good thing.
> > I think there is more consistency in the organization of the code and
> > fewer if any circularities in the build order. But what we are really
> > trying to do in FlexJS is get some library developers to abstract away
> the
> > differences between platforms so that application developers can have a
> > single-source to single-target. And those library developers are
> > currently finding that single-source to multi-target is the most
> efficient
> > way to develop those abstractions.
> >
> > When I think of it that way, I think we should use both Ant and Maven. I
> > still haven't heard feedback on the idea of creating an "externs" folder
> > as a sibling to the "frameworks" folder which, independent of Maven,
> might
> > help us manage doing library abstraction development in IDEs. That would
> > give you a fresh set of pom.xml files to work with, but all of the source
> > would be outside of the project folder. Which Ant is totally fine with,
> > but is not quite what Maven had in mind.
> >
> > So, why not just have Maven call Ant to do the dirty work until the
> > results are essentially single-source to single-target? Then there
> aren't
> > as many, if any, custom Mojos to maintain. Maybe Ant is the right tool
> > for taking our conditional compilation code base and generating output so
> > Maven can do the rest. I would imagine that's why Maven supports calls
> to
> > Ant.
> >
> > The proposal is, if we build out an "externs" sibling to "frameworks",
> > then I think the folder structure would look like this:
> >
> > externs/projects/Core/.project - FlashBuilder project for building
> > externs/projects/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
> > -There would not be a src/main/flex folder in externs/projects/Core.
> > -externs/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml would have
> > relative paths back to frameworks/projects/Core
> >
> >
> >
> frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/core/Application.as,
> > etc.
> > frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-as-config.xml
> >
> > Produces:
> > Frameworks/projects/Core/target/Core.swc
> >
> > Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> > frameworks/projects/Core/target/generated-sources/flexjs folder
> > Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> > externs/project/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
> >
> > I think the Maven build would use Ant to do the generated-sources and
> > XXX-externs.swc for all of the other externs/projects before Ant or Maven
> > builds final SWCs by going through the frameworks/projects.
> > Maven could also do these steps if it ok with having the source outside
> > the project folder.
> >
> >
> > When that is done, I think Maven should have an easier time producing the
> > final SWC because inside frameworks/projects/Core is a set of source
> files
> > and generated files that have a single output (Core.swc) which is the
> only
> > artifact our application developer customers need. We should consider
> > deploying the Core-externs.swc for folks creating third-party libraries
> > that rely on our libraries but would expect less demand for the
> > -externs.swcs.
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/5/16, 6:26 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> > <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Chris,
> > >
> > >I'm following your iteration (silently in order to not introduce noise),
> > >and I think you're doing a great work. I know about others here very
> > >interested in this stuff too.
> > >
> > >Regarding Maven things, people working with maven knows how much pain is
> > >to
> > >make a working maven setup correctly, and it needs too much effort, but
> as
> > >things gets working, it's an invaluable tool. I think this is the way to
> > >go, and even, If I need to choose, I'll vote for maven over ant,
> dropping
> > >ant support. But this should be the way of thinking for others
> > >contributing
> > >to FlexJS. I don't know what others think about maven support and if
> they
> > >know about the benefits. It's like the benefits of GIT over SVN, it was
> a
> > >bit painful to jump over GIT, but I think people looking back in the
> past
> > >could appreciate the great benefits of GIT on this project (hopefuly) :)
> > >
> > >Thanks for your effort, hope you decide to keep the great work
> > >
> > >Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >2016-05-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
> > >
> > >> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven
> :-(
> > >>
> > >> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I
> > >>don't
> > >> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an
> > >>insane
> > >> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite
> > >>time
> > >> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
> > >> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall
> > >>impression
> > >> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time
> > >>in
> > >> other projects.
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> > >> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> > >> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> > >> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> > >>
> > >> Got it.
> > >>
> > >> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what
> it
> > >> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
> > >>
> > >> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to
> > >>build
> > >> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the
> > >>flexjs
> > >> code with all these define blocks
> > >> >
> > >> > Chris
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> > >> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> > >> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> > >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> > >> >
> > >> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
> > >> >
> > >> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
> > >> languages (such as ActionScript)?
> > >> >
> > >> > Harbs
> > >> >
> > >> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz
> > >><ch...@c-ware.de>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you
> > >>can
> > >> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
> > >>clearly
> > >> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
> > >> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Chris
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >
> > >Carlos Rovira
> > >Director General
> > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> > >http://www.avant2.es
> > >
> > >
> > >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
> > >información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
> > >error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma
> vía y
> > >proceda a su destrucción.
> > >
> > >De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> > >comunicamos
> > >que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
> > >S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
> > >servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
> > >rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> > >nuestras
> > >oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
> > >necesaria.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Carlos Rovira
> Director General
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> http://www.avant2.es
>
>
> 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: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
Hi,
I understand the point behind Chris words, I must said I feel a bit like
that in the past. This project has many dark corners that make people
trying to jump in be repeled due to complexity that is impossible to manage
without dedicating lots of hours (or be the one that code it). In my case,
to be honest, that complexity in addition to having to come back to manage
my company makes me unable to contribute but in a very soft way (side
things) or follow this project as I can.
I think Chris puts on the table an important point that should be take care
of if we all want to get FlexJS, not only be maven driven, but a project
that could be gain traction cause it could be learned easily for people
coming. That's our first great problem...
I stated time ago that one of the problems was complexity. Many
configurations, FlexSDK dependency (that I supposed was already removed by
Alex, but it's not), lots of ants with lots of targets...)
Last time I tried to compile and test source code was on 0.6 release, and
after 3 days I couldn't get it working (even with Alex's support). Maybe
was my computer, maybe something on the project, don't know. I want to try
0.7 as I get today some time to see if I get the same result, but all this
means, I never get to a point where I can do something valuable, and that's
in part due my few time, but in other part, due to the complexity of all
pieces needed and their dependencies.
Maven is complex to setup and requires lots of effort and discipline to get
setup in the right way. The only way do this is embracing the right way
(Chris's way) to do it with all the consequences (lots of changes and
refactors, lots of time and energy invested,...). Is all or nothing, but if
you get to the check point, then all will be more organized and
contributors making new things, couldn't that without wiring it up
correctly all the way through maven. So it will reduce hacks and things
done in a "bad way"...
I think is time to decide if we want maven (with all implications) or drop
it to let Chris live again.
2016-05-05 19:30 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
>
> Ok so here we are again ... you claim to know how Maven works but are
> unwilling to learn what maven is. So we keep on having these unproductive
> discussions like one of those bar-talks where everyone knows things better
> without actually knowing anything. I guess everyone here that knows Maven
> will probably know Ant and he will probably support my efforts. You don't
> know a thing about Maven but keep on talking as if you do.
>
> Yes Maven follows the principal of one primary artifact per module, but
> ist the "primary" you should be paying attention to.
> I have setup Maven to build both the externs as well as the swcs from one
> and the same code-base in one run of the build. And that's a totally valid
> Maven strategy. The problem I am having is that the magic Ant build seems
> to be producing different output than mine, even if I match the input to
> the compilers to the bit (I actually tried that), so I guess there is other
> magic involved, that I simply can't see. Some system properties, that
> configure things differently.
>
> I for my part don't trust builds I don't understand and I don't understand
> the Ant build and judging from your comments on my last mail you can't
> explain what all of the knobs and levers in the build actually are needed
> for. I wanted to build Falcon yesterday, but couldn't because it was
> missing apache-commons-io ... so I had a look and could see the downloads
> for the utility jar are done by going into the src/test/resources directory
> of the compiler and calling an Ant script called download.xml there ...
> WTF? You call that maintainable?
>
> I don't want to contribute to a project that I have to figure out how to
> build every 2 or 3 weeks ... I don't want to contribute to a project, where
> I have something working on one day, the next day nothing works because a
> download was added and the bloody download scripts don't know to update. So
> I start doing "ant wipe-all" + "ant all" all the time. Thinking in Maven
> terms this is like deleting the Maven local repo every time. I've wasted
> far too many days of productive time with this build out of hell (As we
> inherited this I probably won't offend anyone in this project). To me this
> project feels like it's having a detached head. There is a hand full of
> people that keep on hacking and the others are waiting for stuff to happen,
> because they don't want to get run over by problems with the build or they
> simply don't understand how to contribute. I think we have a lot of people
> here (We are actually the 10th biggest ASF project judging from the
> committer numbers) that are too afraid to get started. I want to get them
> into the boat.
>
> So as long as I don't hear a meaningful number of others stepping up ...
> I'll step down and start living a life again ... far too many friends I
> didn't have a beer with cause I was working on Flex, far to many days my
> girlfriend was mad at me, cause I sat at the computer the whole day trying
> to get this one thing finished.
>
> I'm sick of it and so I'll check where to put a sensible amount of effort
> into other projects at ApacheCon.
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016 18:22:26
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> There is a phrase: "right tool for the job".
>
> At the time we migrated Adobe JIRA to Apache JIRA, Maven support for Flex
> was easily the most voted-on issue. I don't follow the Maven community so
> I don't know if other tools have become more popular, but I otherwise have
> no reason to doubt that if FlexJS gets traction within the same set of
> customers, Maven will again be sought after.
>
> So, I am totally in favor of trying to get our JARs and SWCs up in Maven
> Central so that folks can develop applications the Maven way, and I have
> postponed feature development to help make it happen.
>
> But whether we use Maven for every step of generating the JARs and SWCs is
> the actual question, and I am no longer clear that Maven is the right tool
> for every step of that job. Yes, you can extend Maven with Mojos to make
> it work, but it isn't clear to me that the investment in these Mojos are
> worth it when Ant can already do it. IMO, a Mojo is worth the investment
> in writing and maintaining when there is going to be lots of re-use of it,
> so that's why FlexMojos is worth it. AIUI, FlexMojos makes Maven
> understand ActionScript and SWCs instead of just Java and JARs. But Mojos
> just to insert or replace text seems like a lot of work when an Ant script
> already exists to do that work.
>
> Further, Maven seems to expect applications to be written in a particular
> pattern: single-source to single-target. The FlexJS framework is
> single-source to multi-target via conditional compilation. We've tried 3
> different source code patterns so far (separate AS and JS folders,
> separate folders for platform vs multi platform, single folder with
> conditional compile) and I believe that conditional compilation is getting
> us the best code productivity. For example, last night I was able to fix
> a bug by touching one file instead of two. Wikipedia says that
> conditional compilation is often used for multi-platform, so I using
> conditional compilation is a valid approach. I'm open to other code
> management ideas, but separating the code in order to make the build
> system happy doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Doing the refactoring to try to get Maven to work has been a good thing.
> I think there is more consistency in the organization of the code and
> fewer if any circularities in the build order. But what we are really
> trying to do in FlexJS is get some library developers to abstract away the
> differences between platforms so that application developers can have a
> single-source to single-target. And those library developers are
> currently finding that single-source to multi-target is the most efficient
> way to develop those abstractions.
>
> When I think of it that way, I think we should use both Ant and Maven. I
> still haven't heard feedback on the idea of creating an "externs" folder
> as a sibling to the "frameworks" folder which, independent of Maven, might
> help us manage doing library abstraction development in IDEs. That would
> give you a fresh set of pom.xml files to work with, but all of the source
> would be outside of the project folder. Which Ant is totally fine with,
> but is not quite what Maven had in mind.
>
> So, why not just have Maven call Ant to do the dirty work until the
> results are essentially single-source to single-target? Then there aren't
> as many, if any, custom Mojos to maintain. Maybe Ant is the right tool
> for taking our conditional compilation code base and generating output so
> Maven can do the rest. I would imagine that's why Maven supports calls to
> Ant.
>
> The proposal is, if we build out an "externs" sibling to "frameworks",
> then I think the folder structure would look like this:
>
> externs/projects/Core/.project - FlashBuilder project for building
> externs/projects/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
> -There would not be a src/main/flex folder in externs/projects/Core.
> -externs/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml would have
> relative paths back to frameworks/projects/Core
>
>
> frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/core/Application.as,
> etc.
> frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-as-config.xml
>
> Produces:
> Frameworks/projects/Core/target/Core.swc
>
> Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> frameworks/projects/Core/target/generated-sources/flexjs folder
> Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> externs/project/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
>
> I think the Maven build would use Ant to do the generated-sources and
> XXX-externs.swc for all of the other externs/projects before Ant or Maven
> builds final SWCs by going through the frameworks/projects.
> Maven could also do these steps if it ok with having the source outside
> the project folder.
>
>
> When that is done, I think Maven should have an easier time producing the
> final SWC because inside frameworks/projects/Core is a set of source files
> and generated files that have a single output (Core.swc) which is the only
> artifact our application developer customers need. We should consider
> deploying the Core-externs.swc for folks creating third-party libraries
> that rely on our libraries but would expect less demand for the
> -externs.swcs.
>
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
>
> On 5/5/16, 6:26 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Chris,
> >
> >I'm following your iteration (silently in order to not introduce noise),
> >and I think you're doing a great work. I know about others here very
> >interested in this stuff too.
> >
> >Regarding Maven things, people working with maven knows how much pain is
> >to
> >make a working maven setup correctly, and it needs too much effort, but as
> >things gets working, it's an invaluable tool. I think this is the way to
> >go, and even, If I need to choose, I'll vote for maven over ant, dropping
> >ant support. But this should be the way of thinking for others
> >contributing
> >to FlexJS. I don't know what others think about maven support and if they
> >know about the benefits. It's like the benefits of GIT over SVN, it was a
> >bit painful to jump over GIT, but I think people looking back in the past
> >could appreciate the great benefits of GIT on this project (hopefuly) :)
> >
> >Thanks for your effort, hope you decide to keep the great work
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >2016-05-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
> >
> >> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
> >>
> >> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I
> >>don't
> >> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an
> >>insane
> >> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite
> >>time
> >> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
> >> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall
> >>impression
> >> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time
> >>in
> >> other projects.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> >> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> >> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >>
> >> Got it.
> >>
> >> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
> >> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
> >>
> >> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to
> >>build
> >> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the
> >>flexjs
> >> code with all these define blocks
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> >> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >> >
> >> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
> >> >
> >> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
> >> languages (such as ActionScript)?
> >> >
> >> > Harbs
> >> >
> >> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz
> >><ch...@c-ware.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you
> >>can
> >> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
> >>clearly
> >> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
> >> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Carlos Rovira
> >Director General
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >http://www.avant2.es
> >
> >
> >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
> >información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
> >error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
> >proceda a su destrucción.
> >
> >De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> >comunicamos
> >que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
> >S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
> >servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
> >rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> >nuestras
> >oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
> >necesaria.
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.avant2.es
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.
AW: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Ok so here we are again ... you claim to know how Maven works but are unwilling to learn what maven is. So we keep on having these unproductive discussions like one of those bar-talks where everyone knows things better without actually knowing anything. I guess everyone here that knows Maven will probably know Ant and he will probably support my efforts. You don't know a thing about Maven but keep on talking as if you do.
Yes Maven follows the principal of one primary artifact per module, but ist the "primary" you should be paying attention to.
I have setup Maven to build both the externs as well as the swcs from one and the same code-base in one run of the build. And that's a totally valid Maven strategy. The problem I am having is that the magic Ant build seems to be producing different output than mine, even if I match the input to the compilers to the bit (I actually tried that), so I guess there is other magic involved, that I simply can't see. Some system properties, that configure things differently.
I for my part don't trust builds I don't understand and I don't understand the Ant build and judging from your comments on my last mail you can't explain what all of the knobs and levers in the build actually are needed for. I wanted to build Falcon yesterday, but couldn't because it was missing apache-commons-io ... so I had a look and could see the downloads for the utility jar are done by going into the src/test/resources directory of the compiler and calling an Ant script called download.xml there ... WTF? You call that maintainable?
I don't want to contribute to a project that I have to figure out how to build every 2 or 3 weeks ... I don't want to contribute to a project, where I have something working on one day, the next day nothing works because a download was added and the bloody download scripts don't know to update. So I start doing "ant wipe-all" + "ant all" all the time. Thinking in Maven terms this is like deleting the Maven local repo every time. I've wasted far too many days of productive time with this build out of hell (As we inherited this I probably won't offend anyone in this project). To me this project feels like it's having a detached head. There is a hand full of people that keep on hacking and the others are waiting for stuff to happen, because they don't want to get run over by problems with the build or they simply don't understand how to contribute. I think we have a lot of people here (We are actually the 10th biggest ASF project judging from the committer numbers) that are too afraid to get started. I want to get them into the boat.
So as long as I don't hear a meaningful number of others stepping up ... I'll step down and start living a life again ... far too many friends I didn't have a beer with cause I was working on Flex, far to many days my girlfriend was mad at me, cause I sat at the computer the whole day trying to get this one thing finished.
I'm sick of it and so I'll check where to put a sensible amount of effort into other projects at ApacheCon.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016 18:22:26
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
There is a phrase: "right tool for the job".
At the time we migrated Adobe JIRA to Apache JIRA, Maven support for Flex
was easily the most voted-on issue. I don't follow the Maven community so
I don't know if other tools have become more popular, but I otherwise have
no reason to doubt that if FlexJS gets traction within the same set of
customers, Maven will again be sought after.
So, I am totally in favor of trying to get our JARs and SWCs up in Maven
Central so that folks can develop applications the Maven way, and I have
postponed feature development to help make it happen.
But whether we use Maven for every step of generating the JARs and SWCs is
the actual question, and I am no longer clear that Maven is the right tool
for every step of that job. Yes, you can extend Maven with Mojos to make
it work, but it isn't clear to me that the investment in these Mojos are
worth it when Ant can already do it. IMO, a Mojo is worth the investment
in writing and maintaining when there is going to be lots of re-use of it,
so that's why FlexMojos is worth it. AIUI, FlexMojos makes Maven
understand ActionScript and SWCs instead of just Java and JARs. But Mojos
just to insert or replace text seems like a lot of work when an Ant script
already exists to do that work.
Further, Maven seems to expect applications to be written in a particular
pattern: single-source to single-target. The FlexJS framework is
single-source to multi-target via conditional compilation. We've tried 3
different source code patterns so far (separate AS and JS folders,
separate folders for platform vs multi platform, single folder with
conditional compile) and I believe that conditional compilation is getting
us the best code productivity. For example, last night I was able to fix
a bug by touching one file instead of two. Wikipedia says that
conditional compilation is often used for multi-platform, so I using
conditional compilation is a valid approach. I'm open to other code
management ideas, but separating the code in order to make the build
system happy doesn't make sense to me.
Doing the refactoring to try to get Maven to work has been a good thing.
I think there is more consistency in the organization of the code and
fewer if any circularities in the build order. But what we are really
trying to do in FlexJS is get some library developers to abstract away the
differences between platforms so that application developers can have a
single-source to single-target. And those library developers are
currently finding that single-source to multi-target is the most efficient
way to develop those abstractions.
When I think of it that way, I think we should use both Ant and Maven. I
still haven't heard feedback on the idea of creating an "externs" folder
as a sibling to the "frameworks" folder which, independent of Maven, might
help us manage doing library abstraction development in IDEs. That would
give you a fresh set of pom.xml files to work with, but all of the source
would be outside of the project folder. Which Ant is totally fine with,
but is not quite what Maven had in mind.
So, why not just have Maven call Ant to do the dirty work until the
results are essentially single-source to single-target? Then there aren't
as many, if any, custom Mojos to maintain. Maybe Ant is the right tool
for taking our conditional compilation code base and generating output so
Maven can do the rest. I would imagine that's why Maven supports calls to
Ant.
The proposal is, if we build out an "externs" sibling to "frameworks",
then I think the folder structure would look like this:
externs/projects/Core/.project - FlashBuilder project for building
externs/projects/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
-There would not be a src/main/flex folder in externs/projects/Core.
-externs/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml would have
relative paths back to frameworks/projects/Core
frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/core/Application.as,
etc.
frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-as-config.xml
Produces:
Frameworks/projects/Core/target/Core.swc
Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
frameworks/projects/Core/target/generated-sources/flexjs folder
Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
externs/project/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
I think the Maven build would use Ant to do the generated-sources and
XXX-externs.swc for all of the other externs/projects before Ant or Maven
builds final SWCs by going through the frameworks/projects.
Maven could also do these steps if it ok with having the source outside
the project folder.
When that is done, I think Maven should have an easier time producing the
final SWC because inside frameworks/projects/Core is a set of source files
and generated files that have a single output (Core.swc) which is the only
artifact our application developer customers need. We should consider
deploying the Core-externs.swc for folks creating third-party libraries
that rely on our libraries but would expect less demand for the
-externs.swcs.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 5/5/16, 6:26 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>I'm following your iteration (silently in order to not introduce noise),
>and I think you're doing a great work. I know about others here very
>interested in this stuff too.
>
>Regarding Maven things, people working with maven knows how much pain is
>to
>make a working maven setup correctly, and it needs too much effort, but as
>things gets working, it's an invaluable tool. I think this is the way to
>go, and even, If I need to choose, I'll vote for maven over ant, dropping
>ant support. But this should be the way of thinking for others
>contributing
>to FlexJS. I don't know what others think about maven support and if they
>know about the benefits. It's like the benefits of GIT over SVN, it was a
>bit painful to jump over GIT, but I think people looking back in the past
>could appreciate the great benefits of GIT on this project (hopefuly) :)
>
>Thanks for your effort, hope you decide to keep the great work
>
>Carlos
>
>
>
>2016-05-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
>
>> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
>>
>> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I
>>don't
>> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an
>>insane
>> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite
>>time
>> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
>> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall
>>impression
>> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time
>>in
>> other projects.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
>> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to
>>build
>> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the
>>flexjs
>> code with all these define blocks
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
>> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>> >
>> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
>> >
>> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
>> languages (such as ActionScript)?
>> >
>> > Harbs
>> >
>> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz
>><ch...@c-ware.de>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you
>>can
>> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
>>clearly
>> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
>> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>Carlos Rovira
>Director General
>M: +34 607 22 60 05
>http://www.codeoscopic.com
>http://www.avant2.es
>
>
>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: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
2016-05-06 9:16 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>:
> Why put the entire project on hold? Don't people also want to
> know if we can shim the MX and Spark libraries?
>
> -Alex
>
>
MX and Spark is, for me, the viewable thing that could make people get
interest (all eye candy things has that attraction power), but I agree with
Chris that this project is a beast somehow difficult to jump over. Say that
the project is on hold for a month, but that makes it to reorganize in a
maven-driven way that makes potential contributors try to add or fix
something by launch-break (as Chris says), and they end get it, without end
the launch-break without getting the project initial setup done. Don't you
think that would be a great success for Apache FlexJS?
For me is to stop from adding new features for a while in order to get more
productivity and potential people coming. And I think that those of you
that are the main contributors to this project would need to have a
philosophical approach to make things in order that prepare the way to many
others could contribute, have more focus than other on code quality and
tools, because if you don't take care of this structural things, nobody
will do that.
I would love to see Spark coming, but I'm afraid that the Maven change is
much more needed, and if done, that time could be recovered and from that
point go much more faster and with potential new contributors.
--
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.avant2.es
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.
AW: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
1) Otherwise, why would we need to build a custom Mojo just to do regex string replacement?
Because regexp replacement was the wrong thing to do from the start. It would have been good to use a diff patch approach and for that there are already plugins available and tested. Anyway ... have you looked at the "Mojos"? They are simple classes implementing an interface with an execute method ... I wouldn't call that "first you have to create a mojo" sort of like climbing the Mt Everest ;-)
2) Why does Maven support calling Ant in the first place?
This is the one and only plugin I would like to have un-deployed. In my trainings I always say that this plugin is the step to the dark side of the force, cause if you start using it for one thing you tend to go the easy and messy way more and more often. I usually even ban the usage of that plugin to prevent bad things from happening.
3) Do we know of any other Maven-built code bases that use conditional compilation and offer slightly different APIs for downstream modules?
I don't know of any, but I do know projects that produce different output from the same input ... if you look at GWT projects for example. Here part of the code is compiled to java and another is compiled to JavaScript but everything is written in Java. I probably don't know of any, cause it's probably not the question "how do we structure such a project?" which we should ask but "why do we need different APIs in our libraries depending on the output?". I am proposing to make the libraries, like Core, self contained so they have the same API no matter what output they are needed for. For example IUIBase ... why do we need to have different return types for get element? Sure the implementation might be different, but then I would suggest to introduce an intermediate layer that is mapped to IFlexJSElement and WrappedHTMLElement. This way we don't need conditional compilation everywhere IUIBase.element is accessed. I think that's an implementation detail only Core should worry about and all the downstream Libraries should only know "IElement" (IElement being the non existing element abstraction). This would also improve IDE support as the IDE doesn't have to know about conditional compilation. Currently IntelliJ is completely full of red code, cause it doesn't really know what to do with it. Also SonarQube will definitely not know what to do. If we were to abstract the implementation details, we only need the externs for Pure JavaScript libraries and for those the externs approach is absolutely valid. So If you ask me for my vote on this it's deffinitels: "Cleanly abstract the implementation and eliminate the need to generate two types of artifacts from one code base". I know this is work, it's not glorious work you get Aaaaahs and Ooooohs at conferences for, but it's work that just need to be done. I am willing to work on this, but I'm not willing to work on this all on my own and I'm not willing to waste my time in continuing to support sloppy design work.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Mai 2016 09:16:53
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
On 5/5/16, 11:28 PM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>2016-05-06 2:24 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>:
>
>>
>> I'm totally in favor of having Maven artifacts. I don't understand the
>> "all-Maven-for-every-build-step or nothing" attitude. So what if we use
>> Ant for some of it?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>Alex, cause is the nature of maven...is all or nothing. Embrace it or let
>it go. Ant is a thing of the past, and if you want FlexJS to be the
>"framework of the year" in 2017 or 2018, it could not be supported in some
>kind of...mixture of ant scripts that are so cumbersome to manage. I
>already said, and is just MHO...this is like the turn from SVN to GIT. All
>actual projects are GIT based, if Apache Flex would be already SVN based,
>what's the read people approaching this project would have and seeing we
>are stuck in such arcane piece of software? My opinion (and is just that,
>my opinion) is that lots of that people would directly not see far of that
>point.
>
>For me a build system that makes such complex and big project is very
>recomendable. But to make such effort, not only we need a guy with the
>extensive knowledge it requieres, we need support him during the period
>that transformation happens, letting drive the change.
>
IMO, Git does everything SVN does and more. Maven doesn't, IMO, fully
replace Ant. Otherwise, why would we need to build a custom Mojo just to
do regex string replacement? Why not just call Ant to do that? Why does
Maven support calling Ant in the first place?
Do we know of any other Maven-built code bases that use conditional
compilation and offer slightly different APIs for downstream modules?
Let's see how they organized their code. Maybe the answer we want is
somewhere in there. But if there isn't an easy answer, let's offer the
customers the artifacts they want and worry less about how we create those
artifacts. Why put the entire project on hold? Don't people also want to
know if we can shim the MX and Spark libraries?
-Alex
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 5/5/16, 11:28 PM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>2016-05-06 2:24 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>:
>
>>
>> I'm totally in favor of having Maven artifacts. I don't understand the
>> "all-Maven-for-every-build-step or nothing" attitude. So what if we use
>> Ant for some of it?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>Alex, cause is the nature of maven...is all or nothing. Embrace it or let
>it go. Ant is a thing of the past, and if you want FlexJS to be the
>"framework of the year" in 2017 or 2018, it could not be supported in some
>kind of...mixture of ant scripts that are so cumbersome to manage. I
>already said, and is just MHO...this is like the turn from SVN to GIT. All
>actual projects are GIT based, if Apache Flex would be already SVN based,
>what's the read people approaching this project would have and seeing we
>are stuck in such arcane piece of software? My opinion (and is just that,
>my opinion) is that lots of that people would directly not see far of that
>point.
>
>For me a build system that makes such complex and big project is very
>recomendable. But to make such effort, not only we need a guy with the
>extensive knowledge it requieres, we need support him during the period
>that transformation happens, letting drive the change.
>
IMO, Git does everything SVN does and more. Maven doesn't, IMO, fully
replace Ant. Otherwise, why would we need to build a custom Mojo just to
do regex string replacement? Why not just call Ant to do that? Why does
Maven support calling Ant in the first place?
Do we know of any other Maven-built code bases that use conditional
compilation and offer slightly different APIs for downstream modules?
Let's see how they organized their code. Maybe the answer we want is
somewhere in there. But if there isn't an easy answer, let's offer the
customers the artifacts they want and worry less about how we create those
artifacts. Why put the entire project on hold? Don't people also want to
know if we can shim the MX and Spark libraries?
-Alex
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
2016-05-06 2:24 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>:
>
> I'm totally in favor of having Maven artifacts. I don't understand the
> "all-Maven-for-every-build-step or nothing" attitude. So what if we use
> Ant for some of it?
>
> -Alex
>
>
Alex, cause is the nature of maven...is all or nothing. Embrace it or let
it go. Ant is a thing of the past, and if you want FlexJS to be the
"framework of the year" in 2017 or 2018, it could not be supported in some
kind of...mixture of ant scripts that are so cumbersome to manage. I
already said, and is just MHO...this is like the turn from SVN to GIT. All
actual projects are GIT based, if Apache Flex would be already SVN based,
what's the read people approaching this project would have and seeing we
are stuck in such arcane piece of software? My opinion (and is just that,
my opinion) is that lots of that people would directly not see far of that
point.
For me a build system that makes such complex and big project is very
recomendable. But to make such effort, not only we need a guy with the
extensive knowledge it requieres, we need support him during the period
that transformation happens, letting drive the change.
--
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.avant2.es
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.
AW: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
1) Why use different poms for building the same project, but different output?
For one module it doesn't (at least shouldn't) matter what the output it, it still needs the same dependencies, has the same language settings, uses the same namespaces etc. In my initial Flexmojos FlexJS support I solved this problem by simply adding a switch to the configuration. This defaults to Flash output, but I could flip it and produce HTML5 ... so building the Flash application would be "mvn clean install" and building the HTML5 could be "mvn clean isntall -Doutput=html5" (or you set the defaults to build html5 if you want that the default). Why use two poms that would probably be 99% identical? In the flash case it would produce a swc in the other a zip/war which can be used as overlay in another war application.
2) Ant does everything right now
If it does, how come I have to work through the build scripts all the time to find out why things are not working? I agree ... you could do everything with Ant what you can do with Maven. The problem is that we don't do it. It is possible to build an Ant script that takes care of downloading stuff, checking it's the right version etc. But in order to make the Ant build that safe and stable would be an enormous effort. You claim it's easy to do this and that ... so why hasn't this been done? We are having build issue problems related to Ant problems every few days. It's easy to stuff holes as you see them. The problem is that there are so man holes needing stuffing, sometimes it's better to just get a new bucket which comes without holes. So either start a new Ant build from scratch following some good design principles, or switch to maven which brings all of this for free (after the initial effort of migrating).
3) Multi target with alternate dependency chains
I still don't understand why we need different dependency chains at all? Of course in the end we need to go to the JavaScript or the Flashplayer root classes, but after a first layer of abstraction I still don't get why we need some different dependency chains after that layer. If we do, we need to refactor that and clean things up. But that's the point where we keep on turning in circles. You (@alex) always claim: It works in Ant, so if it doesn't in Maven, lets just stick to Ant. In my maven trainings there is one thing I tell my students over and over again. It's the one rule I have learned to respect and which has never proven to be wrong: "If it's hard with Maven, you're doing it wrong". Usually all you need to do is step back, look at what you're trying to do and re think. Example: Maven can only compile each module once. This was a problem with compiling falcon, cause the Ant build compiles part of the code then executes that compiled parts and then compiles everything again. That's not possible with Maven, but if you have a look why you need to do it in the first place you quickly find out that code generators and utility classes are embedded inside the modules they to build. The Maven way is to put them in a separate module and use that in the original module. This way you also clean up your modules so the Falcon compiler doesn't ship with some hand written plugins to annotate Java code with certain Annotations. Now after my refactoring things are separated cleanly. So one may say it's a problem with Maven that you are not flexible enough to do two compilations, I rather say it's a feature cause it forces you to do things right.
4) Mavenizing Falcon and ASJS turned out to be harder than expected
This was solely due to the fact that when I started working on this I based my initial assumption on how much work it would be on experience I had. For example I did the same for huge codebases as Volkswagen (where I migrated all of their software from Ant to Maven) and I just finished a project for one of the biggest german Banks where I did the same. The one thing that Falcon greatly differed from the rest is code-quality and architecture. Most of the problems I was having was due to unclean code handling things in a way that I don't get an error message, but a NullPointerException, which you have to track down. I have requested us to go slower and work on quality, but probably most people seeing it the same way on this list kept quiet and you claim "feature over quality". Well I see it differently ... what use is a feature, but using it is difficult cause whenever you don't use it right it blows up, giving you no clue why.
Mavenizing Falcon was hard, yes, but migrating ASJS turned out to be a nightmare cause the core concepts seem to be flawed. This is where I ran into a wall. I complain about problems in the architecture and all I get in response is, "Then just use Ant cause that doesn't care"
5) Why not use Ant for the things that are hard and Maven for the rest?
This way we have to configure two build systems. And it doesn't make us think twice about design decisions. If our first thought doesn't work with maven we do it with Ant. Anyway it wouldn't solve the root problem: The large amount of people having problem with the Ant build. If the Ant build is so good, why do we tend to have Build related questions on these lists avery few days? IF the Ant build was solid and good I would never have put so much weight into migrating. Do you hear me migrating the old SDK? Probably not cause that build simply seems to be working. Except for those periodic dropouts of download sources, but by downloading stuff from Maven central I can't even remember the last time someone had a problem with that.
6) Having a problem with Ant
No I'm not having a problem with Ant ... it's uncountable problems. Every time I start working on something and have to touch the Ant build. For example using apache commons-io for handling the Path normailsation instead of re-implementing this logic over and over again. How do I get this Jar? How do I get it into the right classpath? How much code do I need to add this to Ant? In Maven I just add a dependency and continue coding. With Ant this is a difficult task. So I should post the log of a failed ant Build? That's huge and unfortunately It doesn't show the important parts. I remember that my build failed with 4 failed tests, but I wasn't able to find what tests failed in the log? I keep on deleting my workspace, checking out everything from scratch to solve problems, but that simply can't be the way to go.
7) Providing Maven artifacts
This is not the issue, I think I solved that problem ... the SDK is perfectly usable using my Mavenizer and for Falcon and ASJS I added some Ant scripts to produce the artifacts. But whenever things with the SDK changed these scripts would have to be manually adjusted to the latest changes. I was expecting this to happen, but I guess it's wasted time in the "feature over quality" discussion. I kept on re-adjusting those scripts for every ApacheCon, but have come to the conclusion that the current Ant build is the root problem of the FlexJS project and hereby started an initiative to solve that problem. I want to actually start fixing things, making things stable, but I won't do that with such a fu**ed up build. And I guess this is what's keeping several people on this list from contributing.
8) Ant == High developer productivity
Are you actually reading the posts on this list? People are claiming not having the time to fix things. If you look at my SonarQube there would be an enormous amount of low hanging fruit that you could fix several in your lunch-break. But noone even thinks about that cause he knows the lunch-break would not be enough to even get started. So I would like to claim that Ant != High developer productivity. It might be high Alex productivity, but I wouldn't claim that it is good for the overall developer. Hey ... I'm the best example for it not being that way so we are currently at a draw.
9) Ant == High code quality?
Are you serious? Falcon and ASJS has by far the worst code quality I have ever come across. It's so bad that i stopped talking about it in my company cause I was afraid that they would make fun of me, if someone ever had a look. I have come across uncountable places where I had to laugh cause it would be a perfect nerd-joke on a t-shirt ;-)
10) Ant == High maintainablity?
Are you serious? Try adding something simple as a new dependency to the build. You might be able to do that, but I doubt 90% of the people on this list do. I even have real big problems with that. Even if you just add a new module, or add tests to a module? You call the Ant build maintainable? I don't.
11) Only one expert on the project
Well at least we would have one expert. I wouldn't claim the Ant build to be expert work. And by cleaning up the project the complexity level would drop that much that you wouldn't have to be an expert to continue. I agree migrating to Maven is a job that even very hard for an expert, but I'm doing that an progress had been very good for Falcon and I would be willing to do that for ASJS. As soon as that's done the rest should be easy. and if the sky should fall on my head after the migration, we are in the ASF ... the place that builds Maven, so what would be so hard in simply asking fellow ASF people at the Maven project? It's not that I'm the only expert on this topic.
12) would having a parallel set of projects in an "externs" folder help or not?
No it would not. I read your emails but you don't seem to be reading my answers. Building the externs is the smallest problems I am having. Actually that's the part that's working nicely. I am having problems with the rest- Building ASJS libraries that depend on other ASJS libraries.
13) Flex isn't a corporate sponsored project
I think it is ... Adobe is paying you full time to work on this, so I guess it is a corporate sponsored project. What is if Adobe decided to stop paying you for working on Flex? Then we would be stuck with this build that none, not even you seem to understand to 100%. I'd rather be stuck with a standard build, that follows some standard rules instead of with the current solution ... and ... Adobe promised to support us for 5 years by paying someone to continue working on Flex ... so how much time do we have left?
Ufff ... think I'm through with it :-)
I think I'll sketch my vision of flex in a separate Email ;-)
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Mai 2016 02:24
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
On 5/5/16, 1:36 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>For multiple targets, I think it should be possible by using different pom
>files for different targets. You could have a parent pom that calls these
>two poms if you want to chain them together.
Sounds possible. I wonder why we haven't tried that yet.
>
>From an end user point of view, I don't need to have SDK downloaded, no
>env. variables set, no dependencies to download, etc. All I have to do is
>run "mvn install" from my project folder where I have my FlexJS project.
>Maven will take care of everything else (downloading, compiling, copying,
>etc.) It will also cache everything in the right places so that nothing
>has
>to be downloaded more than once.
>
>From an SDK developer/contributor point of view, I want to be able to run
>maven and quickly compile the changes I make. This makes it easier for me
>to contribute to the SDK development.
>
>This is the end goal of what Chris is trying. Ant does not come close to
>this.
Actually, other than Playerglobal and FlashPlayerDebugger, Ant already
does this. And it could easily be made to do the other two but they are
build tools and I wasn't sure our official build scripts can/should do
that (needs licensing acceptance, makes us appear to have dependencies on
non-AL-compatible things).
I'm totally in favor of having Maven artifacts. I don't understand the
"all-Maven-for-every-build-step or nothing" attitude. So what if we use
Ant for some of it?
-Alex
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 5/5/16, 5:36 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm totally in favor of having Maven artifacts. I don't understand the
>> "all-Maven-for-every-build-step or nothing" attitude. So what if we use
>> Ant for some of it?
>>
>
>I don't know how to explain it to you. You have an environment set up and
>you are probably very comfortable with it.
>
>Have you recently tried setting up the FlexJS dev environment on a brand
>new machine? If you haven't, you should probably try it. Try to get
>everything going without looking up your current dev machine. Hopefully
>your perspective would change.
Well, I don't have a brand new machine handy. I would follow this page
though [1].
And if there are problems I would fix it. And I hope if others hit issues
they report them with enough level of detail and/or work with us to get
enough detail to fix it. To me, that is collaboration. Hopefully our
customers do not find a bug in Flex and thus abandon the entire product.
If somehow the Maven build doesn't work for someone, we won't abandon
Maven.
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/FlexJS+Developer+Setup
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/5/16, 1:36 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> <omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >For multiple targets, I think it should be possible by using different pom
> >files for different targets. You could have a parent pom that calls these
> >two poms if you want to chain them together.
>
> Sounds possible. I wonder why we haven't tried that yet.
>
> >
> >From an end user point of view, I don't need to have SDK downloaded, no
> >env. variables set, no dependencies to download, etc. All I have to do is
> >run "mvn install" from my project folder where I have my FlexJS project.
> >Maven will take care of everything else (downloading, compiling, copying,
> >etc.) It will also cache everything in the right places so that nothing
> >has
> >to be downloaded more than once.
> >
> >From an SDK developer/contributor point of view, I want to be able to run
> >maven and quickly compile the changes I make. This makes it easier for me
> >to contribute to the SDK development.
> >
> >This is the end goal of what Chris is trying. Ant does not come close to
> >this.
>
> Actually, other than Playerglobal and FlashPlayerDebugger, Ant already
> does this. And it could easily be made to do the other two but they are
> build tools and I wasn't sure our official build scripts can/should do
> that (needs licensing acceptance, makes us appear to have dependencies on
> non-AL-compatible things).
>
> I'm totally in favor of having Maven artifacts. I don't understand the
> "all-Maven-for-every-build-step or nothing" attitude. So what if we use
> Ant for some of it?
>
I don't know how to explain it to you. You have an environment set up and
you are probably very comfortable with it.
Have you recently tried setting up the FlexJS dev environment on a brand
new machine? If you haven't, you should probably try it. Try to get
everything going without looking up your current dev machine. Hopefully
your perspective would change.
Thanks,
Om
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 5/5/16, 1:36 PM, "omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
<omuppi1@gmail.com on behalf of bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>For multiple targets, I think it should be possible by using different pom
>files for different targets. You could have a parent pom that calls these
>two poms if you want to chain them together.
Sounds possible. I wonder why we haven't tried that yet.
>
>From an end user point of view, I don't need to have SDK downloaded, no
>env. variables set, no dependencies to download, etc. All I have to do is
>run "mvn install" from my project folder where I have my FlexJS project.
>Maven will take care of everything else (downloading, compiling, copying,
>etc.) It will also cache everything in the right places so that nothing
>has
>to be downloaded more than once.
>
>From an SDK developer/contributor point of view, I want to be able to run
>maven and quickly compile the changes I make. This makes it easier for me
>to contribute to the SDK development.
>
>This is the end goal of what Chris is trying. Ant does not come close to
>this.
Actually, other than Playerglobal and FlashPlayerDebugger, Ant already
does this. And it could easily be made to do the other two but they are
build tools and I wasn't sure our official build scripts can/should do
that (needs licensing acceptance, makes us appear to have dependencies on
non-AL-compatible things).
I'm totally in favor of having Maven artifacts. I don't understand the
"all-Maven-for-every-build-step or nothing" attitude. So what if we use
Ant for some of it?
-Alex
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> There is a phrase: "right tool for the job".
>
> At the time we migrated Adobe JIRA to Apache JIRA, Maven support for Flex
> was easily the most voted-on issue. I don't follow the Maven community so
> I don't know if other tools have become more popular, but I otherwise have
> no reason to doubt that if FlexJS gets traction within the same set of
> customers, Maven will again be sought after.
>
> So, I am totally in favor of trying to get our JARs and SWCs up in Maven
> Central so that folks can develop applications the Maven way, and I have
> postponed feature development to help make it happen.
>
> But whether we use Maven for every step of generating the JARs and SWCs is
> the actual question, and I am no longer clear that Maven is the right tool
> for every step of that job. Yes, you can extend Maven with Mojos to make
> it work, but it isn't clear to me that the investment in these Mojos are
> worth it when Ant can already do it. IMO, a Mojo is worth the investment
> in writing and maintaining when there is going to be lots of re-use of it,
> so that's why FlexMojos is worth it. AIUI, FlexMojos makes Maven
> understand ActionScript and SWCs instead of just Java and JARs. But Mojos
> just to insert or replace text seems like a lot of work when an Ant script
> already exists to do that work.
>
> Further, Maven seems to expect applications to be written in a particular
> pattern: single-source to single-target. The FlexJS framework is
> single-source to multi-target via conditional compilation. We've tried 3
> different source code patterns so far (separate AS and JS folders,
> separate folders for platform vs multi platform, single folder with
> conditional compile) and I believe that conditional compilation is getting
> us the best code productivity. For example, last night I was able to fix
> a bug by touching one file instead of two. Wikipedia says that
> conditional compilation is often used for multi-platform, so I using
> conditional compilation is a valid approach. I'm open to other code
> management ideas, but separating the code in order to make the build
> system happy doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Doing the refactoring to try to get Maven to work has been a good thing.
> I think there is more consistency in the organization of the code and
> fewer if any circularities in the build order. But what we are really
> trying to do in FlexJS is get some library developers to abstract away the
> differences between platforms so that application developers can have a
> single-source to single-target. And those library developers are
> currently finding that single-source to multi-target is the most efficient
> way to develop those abstractions.
>
> When I think of it that way, I think we should use both Ant and Maven. I
> still haven't heard feedback on the idea of creating an "externs" folder
> as a sibling to the "frameworks" folder which, independent of Maven, might
> help us manage doing library abstraction development in IDEs. That would
> give you a fresh set of pom.xml files to work with, but all of the source
> would be outside of the project folder. Which Ant is totally fine with,
> but is not quite what Maven had in mind.
>
> So, why not just have Maven call Ant to do the dirty work until the
> results are essentially single-source to single-target? Then there aren't
> as many, if any, custom Mojos to maintain. Maybe Ant is the right tool
> for taking our conditional compilation code base and generating output so
> Maven can do the rest. I would imagine that's why Maven supports calls to
> Ant.
>
> The proposal is, if we build out an "externs" sibling to "frameworks",
> then I think the folder structure would look like this:
>
> externs/projects/Core/.project - FlashBuilder project for building
> externs/projects/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
> -There would not be a src/main/flex folder in externs/projects/Core.
> -externs/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml would have
> relative paths back to frameworks/projects/Core
>
>
> frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/core/Application.as,
> etc.
> frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-as-config.xml
>
> Produces:
> Frameworks/projects/Core/target/Core.swc
>
> Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> frameworks/projects/Core/target/generated-sources/flexjs folder
> Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
> externs/project/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
>
> I think the Maven build would use Ant to do the generated-sources and
> XXX-externs.swc for all of the other externs/projects before Ant or Maven
> builds final SWCs by going through the frameworks/projects.
> Maven could also do these steps if it ok with having the source outside
> the project folder.
>
>
> When that is done, I think Maven should have an easier time producing the
> final SWC because inside frameworks/projects/Core is a set of source files
> and generated files that have a single output (Core.swc) which is the only
> artifact our application developer customers need. We should consider
> deploying the Core-externs.swc for folks creating third-party libraries
> that rely on our libraries but would expect less demand for the
> -externs.swcs.
>
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
For multiple targets, I think it should be possible by using different pom
files for different targets. You could have a parent pom that calls these
two poms if you want to chain them together.
From an end user point of view, I don't need to have SDK downloaded, no
env. variables set, no dependencies to download, etc. All I have to do is
run "mvn install" from my project folder where I have my FlexJS project.
Maven will take care of everything else (downloading, compiling, copying,
etc.) It will also cache everything in the right places so that nothing has
to be downloaded more than once.
From an SDK developer/contributor point of view, I want to be able to run
maven and quickly compile the changes I make. This makes it easier for me
to contribute to the SDK development.
This is the end goal of what Chris is trying. Ant does not come close to
this. Chris, I think it would help if you publish a comprehensive set of
goals so that folks can get a big picture of what you are trying to achieve.
Thanks,
Om
>
>
>
> On 5/5/16, 6:26 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Chris,
> >
> >I'm following your iteration (silently in order to not introduce noise),
> >and I think you're doing a great work. I know about others here very
> >interested in this stuff too.
> >
> >Regarding Maven things, people working with maven knows how much pain is
> >to
> >make a working maven setup correctly, and it needs too much effort, but as
> >things gets working, it's an invaluable tool. I think this is the way to
> >go, and even, If I need to choose, I'll vote for maven over ant, dropping
> >ant support. But this should be the way of thinking for others
> >contributing
> >to FlexJS. I don't know what others think about maven support and if they
> >know about the benefits. It's like the benefits of GIT over SVN, it was a
> >bit painful to jump over GIT, but I think people looking back in the past
> >could appreciate the great benefits of GIT on this project (hopefuly) :)
> >
> >Thanks for your effort, hope you decide to keep the great work
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >2016-05-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
> >
> >> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
> >>
> >> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I
> >>don't
> >> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an
> >>insane
> >> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite
> >>time
> >> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
> >> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall
> >>impression
> >> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time
> >>in
> >> other projects.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >>
> >>
> >> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> >> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> >> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >>
> >> Got it.
> >>
> >> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
> >> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
> >>
> >> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to
> >>build
> >> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the
> >>flexjs
> >> code with all these define blocks
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> >> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> >> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >> >
> >> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
> >> >
> >> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
> >> languages (such as ActionScript)?
> >> >
> >> > Harbs
> >> >
> >> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz
> >><ch...@c-ware.de>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you
> >>can
> >> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
> >>clearly
> >> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
> >> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >Carlos Rovira
> >Director General
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >http://www.avant2.es
> >
> >
> >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: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
There is a phrase: "right tool for the job".
At the time we migrated Adobe JIRA to Apache JIRA, Maven support for Flex
was easily the most voted-on issue. I don't follow the Maven community so
I don't know if other tools have become more popular, but I otherwise have
no reason to doubt that if FlexJS gets traction within the same set of
customers, Maven will again be sought after.
So, I am totally in favor of trying to get our JARs and SWCs up in Maven
Central so that folks can develop applications the Maven way, and I have
postponed feature development to help make it happen.
But whether we use Maven for every step of generating the JARs and SWCs is
the actual question, and I am no longer clear that Maven is the right tool
for every step of that job. Yes, you can extend Maven with Mojos to make
it work, but it isn't clear to me that the investment in these Mojos are
worth it when Ant can already do it. IMO, a Mojo is worth the investment
in writing and maintaining when there is going to be lots of re-use of it,
so that's why FlexMojos is worth it. AIUI, FlexMojos makes Maven
understand ActionScript and SWCs instead of just Java and JARs. But Mojos
just to insert or replace text seems like a lot of work when an Ant script
already exists to do that work.
Further, Maven seems to expect applications to be written in a particular
pattern: single-source to single-target. The FlexJS framework is
single-source to multi-target via conditional compilation. We've tried 3
different source code patterns so far (separate AS and JS folders,
separate folders for platform vs multi platform, single folder with
conditional compile) and I believe that conditional compilation is getting
us the best code productivity. For example, last night I was able to fix
a bug by touching one file instead of two. Wikipedia says that
conditional compilation is often used for multi-platform, so I using
conditional compilation is a valid approach. I'm open to other code
management ideas, but separating the code in order to make the build
system happy doesn't make sense to me.
Doing the refactoring to try to get Maven to work has been a good thing.
I think there is more consistency in the organization of the code and
fewer if any circularities in the build order. But what we are really
trying to do in FlexJS is get some library developers to abstract away the
differences between platforms so that application developers can have a
single-source to single-target. And those library developers are
currently finding that single-source to multi-target is the most efficient
way to develop those abstractions.
When I think of it that way, I think we should use both Ant and Maven. I
still haven't heard feedback on the idea of creating an "externs" folder
as a sibling to the "frameworks" folder which, independent of Maven, might
help us manage doing library abstraction development in IDEs. That would
give you a fresh set of pom.xml files to work with, but all of the source
would be outside of the project folder. Which Ant is totally fine with,
but is not quite what Maven had in mind.
So, why not just have Maven call Ant to do the dirty work until the
results are essentially single-source to single-target? Then there aren't
as many, if any, custom Mojos to maintain. Maybe Ant is the right tool
for taking our conditional compilation code base and generating output so
Maven can do the rest. I would imagine that's why Maven supports calls to
Ant.
The proposal is, if we build out an "externs" sibling to "frameworks",
then I think the folder structure would look like this:
externs/projects/Core/.project - FlashBuilder project for building
externs/projects/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
-There would not be a src/main/flex folder in externs/projects/Core.
-externs/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml would have
relative paths back to frameworks/projects/Core
frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/flex/org/apache/flex/core/Application.as,
etc.
frameworks/projects/Core/src/main/config/compile-as-config.xml
Produces:
Frameworks/projects/Core/target/Core.swc
Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
frameworks/projects/Core/target/generated-sources/flexjs folder
Ant would use externs/projects/Core to generate the
externs/project/Core/target/Core-externs.swc
I think the Maven build would use Ant to do the generated-sources and
XXX-externs.swc for all of the other externs/projects before Ant or Maven
builds final SWCs by going through the frameworks/projects.
Maven could also do these steps if it ok with having the source outside
the project folder.
When that is done, I think Maven should have an easier time producing the
final SWC because inside frameworks/projects/Core is a set of source files
and generated files that have a single output (Core.swc) which is the only
artifact our application developer customers need. We should consider
deploying the Core-externs.swc for folks creating third-party libraries
that rely on our libraries but would expect less demand for the
-externs.swcs.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 5/5/16, 6:26 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>I'm following your iteration (silently in order to not introduce noise),
>and I think you're doing a great work. I know about others here very
>interested in this stuff too.
>
>Regarding Maven things, people working with maven knows how much pain is
>to
>make a working maven setup correctly, and it needs too much effort, but as
>things gets working, it's an invaluable tool. I think this is the way to
>go, and even, If I need to choose, I'll vote for maven over ant, dropping
>ant support. But this should be the way of thinking for others
>contributing
>to FlexJS. I don't know what others think about maven support and if they
>know about the benefits. It's like the benefits of GIT over SVN, it was a
>bit painful to jump over GIT, but I think people looking back in the past
>could appreciate the great benefits of GIT on this project (hopefuly) :)
>
>Thanks for your effort, hope you decide to keep the great work
>
>Carlos
>
>
>
>2016-05-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
>
>> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
>>
>> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I
>>don't
>> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an
>>insane
>> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite
>>time
>> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
>> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall
>>impression
>> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time
>>in
>> other projects.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
>> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to
>>build
>> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the
>>flexjs
>> code with all these define blocks
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
>> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>> >
>> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
>> >
>> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
>> languages (such as ActionScript)?
>> >
>> > Harbs
>> >
>> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz
>><ch...@c-ware.de>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you
>>can
>> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
>>clearly
>> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
>> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>Carlos Rovira
>Director General
>M: +34 607 22 60 05
>http://www.codeoscopic.com
>http://www.avant2.es
>
>
>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: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by yishayw <yi...@hotmail.com>.
Like Carlos, I've been silently following and appreciating the work you and
Alex have been doing on this. The last time I tried, and from posts I've
seen here I'm not the only one, getting a full and clean installation of the
dev environment was a big hassle. If your joint work ends up making this
trivial, I think the community will indeed benefit.
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FALCON-Code-analysis-stats-for-Falcon-tp52793p52805.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
Hi Chris,
I'm following your iteration (silently in order to not introduce noise),
and I think you're doing a great work. I know about others here very
interested in this stuff too.
Regarding Maven things, people working with maven knows how much pain is to
make a working maven setup correctly, and it needs too much effort, but as
things gets working, it's an invaluable tool. I think this is the way to
go, and even, If I need to choose, I'll vote for maven over ant, dropping
ant support. But this should be the way of thinking for others contributing
to FlexJS. I don't know what others think about maven support and if they
know about the benefits. It's like the benefits of GIT over SVN, it was a
bit painful to jump over GIT, but I think people looking back in the past
could appreciate the great benefits of GIT on this project (hopefuly) :)
Thanks for your effort, hope you decide to keep the great work
Carlos
2016-05-05 12:32 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>:
> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
>
> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I don't
> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an insane
> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite time
> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall impression
> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time in
> other projects.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> Got it.
>
> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>
> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build
> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs
> code with all these define blocks
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >
> >
> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >
> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
> >
> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
> languages (such as ActionScript)?
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can
> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly
> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.avant2.es
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: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Sorry we haven’t been doing more to encourage you. I can’t speak for everyone, but personally, I have no preference of Ant over Maven. I have the very basics of how to use Ant and know nothing about Maven other than the fact that I’ve used it to install stuff and “it just worked”.
If that’s going to be the experience with Falcon and Flex, and enable folks to contribute without a painful experience getting setup, then I think it’s very valuable.
I think the silent majority here is just quietly following your progress and hoping you’ll make things better… ;-)
Harbs
On May 5, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
>
> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I don't want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an insane amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite time than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall impression I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time in other projects.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> Got it.
>
> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>
> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
>> Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs code with all these define blocks
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>
>> Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
>>
>> Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other languages (such as ActionScript)?
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
@Harbs. There is a branch already. If a big change has to be made it
should go in the branch. A small breakage I can fix in an hour doesn't
have to.
@Josh. I can't make you do anything, but really, if you are the PMC and
want to have us use some product, you really should sign up to learn about
that product. Chris has threatened to quit the project several times
already, and if someday he does, where would that leave us? This isn't a
corporate sponsored project where we can just hire another Maven expert.
And what if you want to add some cool new different type of module some
day? We need to use technology that everyone can modify. We can't all
assume we can just be "users".
@Chris. I am not claiming to be a Maven expert. I am just noting that
the multi-target with alternate dependency chains has been hardest part,
and I found some internet articles about how that can be difficult for
Maven. I am sorry that Mavenizing flex-falcon and especially flex-asjs
has turned out to be harder than you expected, but I don't see why we
can't use Ant for the things that are hard, at least for now. Insulting
me and the code base doesn't feel like collaboration. Yes, it has issues,
but some things can be fixed without having to go to Maven. Saying you
had a problem with the Ant build and thus the whole thing is
un-maintainable doesn't feel collaborative either. Posting the log of a
failed Ant build and asking for help so we can put more fault tolerance
into the Ant script is collaborative. I expect that once we get the Maven
build mostly working, if someone tries it and it fails, they will not call
for dropping Maven and going back to Ant.
I don't think this project needs to legislate which build tools we use.
If someone shows up and wants to use Node to get the pieces, that's fine
with me as long as it doesn't break the other builds. Maven artifacts for
our customers are the big goal here, so I am willing to modify the repo
and Ant builds to make Maven work, but so is developer productivity,
approachability of our code and maintainability of our build systems, all
by volunteers working in their spare time. It is a bad sign if there is
one expert who is responsible for something. Using only Maven to make
Maven artifacts is a secondary goal, IMO.
Feel free to fill up another email with venting if it makes you feel
better, then let's get back to talking about technical stuff. Sometimes,
I think you may not be seeing all of my emails. I have mentioned up
thread that problems you are having point to not using the right compilers
and options, not some magic in the build system, and tried several times
to draw with words what the formula is, but I haven't seen actual
questions related to my answers. And I've asked twice already: would
having a parallel set of projects in an "externs" folder help or not?
Maybe I will just do it so you can see what I really mean.
ApacheCon is right around the corner. I have my train tickets for
Wednesday and maybe we can actually draw sketches when we meet up and get
past this current issue. If you decide not to continue, let me know and I
will cancel my tickets.
-Alex
On 5/5/16, 2:39 PM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So maybe it’s time to do the work on asjs in a separate maven branch?
>That way you don’t have to worry if something is broken while you pull
>things apart.
>
>On May 5, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem with finishing the maven stuff for the ASJS part is that I
>>am trying to bring to paper how the parts fit together. Now it's hard
>>but not impossible to sketch how one module is built ... that's why I
>>seem to have managed to have "Core" build, but it starts getting insane
>>as soon as you try to build something that relies on "Core". In order to
>>finish this, we need to clean this mess up and that's where I'm stuck,
>>cause I cant do this without breaking things.
>>
>> Chris
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <om...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash
>>Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016 21:00:23
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Christofer Dutz
>><ch...@c-ware.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven
>>>:-(
>>>
>>
>> You can always set up a poll to gauge interest. It is a good way to see
>> what the community wants. Also, in the end, it is your personal choice
>>to
>> work on this or not.
>>
>> Personally, I am waiting for you to finish the maven integration so I
>>can
>> start using it. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to spare to
>> actually help you with coding this stuff. But you know that I try my
>>best
>> to help you with testing your stuff.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I
>>>don't
>>> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an
>>>insane
>>> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite
>>>time
>>> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
>>> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall
>>>impression
>>> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time
>>>in
>>> other projects.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>>> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>>> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>>
>>> Got it.
>>>
>>> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
>>> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>>>
>>> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz
>>><ch...@c-ware.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to
>>>>build
>>> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the
>>>flexjs
>>> code with all these define blocks
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>>>> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>>>> Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
>>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>>>
>>>> Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
>>>>
>>>> Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
>>> languages (such as ActionScript)?
>>>>
>>>> Harbs
>>>>
>>>> On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz
>>>><ch...@c-ware.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you
>>>>>can
>>> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
>>>clearly
>>> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
>>> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
So maybe it’s time to do the work on asjs in a separate maven branch? That way you don’t have to worry if something is broken while you pull things apart.
On May 5, 2016, at 11:37 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
> The problem with finishing the maven stuff for the ASJS part is that I am trying to bring to paper how the parts fit together. Now it's hard but not impossible to sketch how one module is built ... that's why I seem to have managed to have "Core" build, but it starts getting insane as soon as you try to build something that relies on "Core". In order to finish this, we need to clean this mess up and that's where I'm stuck, cause I cant do this without breaking things.
>
> Chris
> ________________________________________
> Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <om...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016 21:00:23
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
>> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
>>
>
> You can always set up a poll to gauge interest. It is a good way to see
> what the community wants. Also, in the end, it is your personal choice to
> work on this or not.
>
> Personally, I am waiting for you to finish the maven integration so I can
> start using it. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to spare to
> actually help you with coding this stuff. But you know that I try my best
> to help you with testing your stuff.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
>>
>> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I don't
>> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an insane
>> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite time
>> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
>> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall impression
>> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time in
>> other projects.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>
>> Got it.
>>
>> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
>> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build
>> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs
>> code with all these define blocks
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>>> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
>>> Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org
>>> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>>>
>>> Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
>>>
>>> Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
>> languages (such as ActionScript)?
>>>
>>> Harbs
>>>
>>> On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can
>> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly
>> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
>> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>>
AW: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
The problem with finishing the maven stuff for the ASJS part is that I am trying to bring to paper how the parts fit together. Now it's hard but not impossible to sketch how one module is built ... that's why I seem to have managed to have "Core" build, but it starts getting insane as soon as you try to build something that relies on "Core". In order to finish this, we need to clean this mess up and that's where I'm stuck, cause I cant do this without breaking things.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: omuppi1@gmail.com <om...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2016 21:00:23
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
>
You can always set up a poll to gauge interest. It is a good way to see
what the community wants. Also, in the end, it is your personal choice to
work on this or not.
Personally, I am waiting for you to finish the maven integration so I can
start using it. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to spare to
actually help you with coding this stuff. But you know that I try my best
to help you with testing your stuff.
Thanks,
Om
>
> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I don't
> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an insane
> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite time
> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall impression
> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time in
> other projects.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> Got it.
>
> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>
> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build
> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs
> code with all these define blocks
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >
> >
> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >
> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
> >
> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
> languages (such as ActionScript)?
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can
> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly
> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
>
>
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
>
You can always set up a poll to gauge interest. It is a good way to see
what the community wants. Also, in the end, it is your personal choice to
work on this or not.
Personally, I am waiting for you to finish the maven integration so I can
start using it. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to spare to
actually help you with coding this stuff. But you know that I try my best
to help you with testing your stuff.
Thanks,
Om
>
> I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I don't
> want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an insane
> amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite time
> than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more
> complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall impression
> I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time in
> other projects.
>
> Chris
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> Got it.
>
> Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it
> does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
>
> On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build
> with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs
> code with all these define blocks
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
> >
> >
> > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> > Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> > Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
> >
> > Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
> >
> > Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other
> languages (such as ActionScript)?
> >
> > Harbs
> >
> > On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can
> see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly
> points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
> code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
> >>
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
>
>
AW: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
To me it feels like I'm the only one actually wanting to go to Maven :-(
I'm even thinking about dropping the ball on this entirely, cause I don't want to be the only one complaining about the status quo. It was an insane amount of work to get falcon to build with Maven. I invested far nite time than I actually had. All I am hearing is that I'm making things more complicated. If everyone is happy with Ant and it's the overall impression I'm making things more complicated with Maven, I better invest my time in other projects.
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
Datum: 05.05.16 11:54 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Got it.
Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs code with all these define blocks
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
>
> Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other languages (such as ActionScript)?
>
> Harbs
>
> On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>>
>>
>> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>>
>>
>> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Got it.
Once you have the Maven build working, it would be great to see what it does with asjs. Who knows. Maybe we’ll be lucky… ;-)
On May 5, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs code with all these define blocks
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
> Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
>
> Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
>
> Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other languages (such as ActionScript)?
>
> Harbs
>
> On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>>
>>
>> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>>
>>
>> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
AW: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Actually it does support ActionScript. But unfortunately I need to build with Maven fire that and I doubt it will be able to understand the flexjs code with all these define blocks
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>
Datum: 05.05.16 11:02 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other languages (such as ActionScript)?
Harbs
On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>
>
> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>
>
> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>
>
> Chris
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Wow. That’s really nice. Seems like it’s very useful!
Does this only work for Java, or can it be configured for other languages (such as ActionScript)?
Harbs
On May 5, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>
>
> http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>
>
> Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
>
>
> Chris
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server …
Nice! Do you know if we can generate/host this at Apache?
Your’ve also given me another slide for one of my talks at ApacheCon - I owe you a beer.
Thanks,
Justin
AW: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Most if the critical and blocker issues are related to null pointer safety.
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Datum: 05.05.16 17:07 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
On 5/5/16, 1:35 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can
>see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
>clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>
>
>http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>
>
>Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
>code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
Looks very interesting, but I don't know how to find the NPE hot spots.
Can you tell me how to see it?
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: [FALCON] Code analysis stats for Falcon
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 5/5/16, 1:35 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>I just turned on public access to my SonarQube server ... there you can
>see an up-to-date code analysis report for Falcon and FalconJX. It
>clearly points out the Null Pointer hot spots.
>
>
>http://dev.c-ware.de:10000/overview?id=2471
>
>
>Perhaps looking into this every now and then could help improving
>code-quality, stability and resillience of our software.
Looks very interesting, but I don't know how to find the NPE hot spots.
Can you tell me how to see it?
Thanks,
-Alex