You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> on 2017/10/02 17:25:05 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting the
packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I actually
think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on the
Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel. We will only post
one source artifact because the build script can generate both bundles
based on environment variables. We will also post dozens of Jars and SWCs
to Maven Central. And I think we will have an NPM distribution as well.
For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also assume we
are providing a .tar.gz file as well.
Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a vote on
a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z". The source artifact will be
called:
apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip
We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users. They will be called:
apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires
prerequisites)
And:
apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is)
If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still only
have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact
would be called.
apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip
I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names. We
could call the "flexjs" artifact:
apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip
But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name
somewhere.
Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group id:
org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars)
org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs)
org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs)
Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids:
org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler
org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs
org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework
So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing that
we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products primarily
differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there might be a
different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick their
"product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or what SWCs
they depend on.
Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target platform.
For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven Central:
Basic-0.8.0-js.swc
Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc
I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use a
classifier for WebASM some day as in:
Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc
Last is NPM. I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be
wrong. But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by doing:
npm install flexjs -g
If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed
apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called
royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type:
npm install royale-flexjs -g
And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of
apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via:
npm install royale-js -g
But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just unzip
apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it. Not sure if we need to make
something available just by typing:
npm install royale -g
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
>names)
>and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
>As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to dictate
>if we want to target one or more outputs.
>So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that could
>output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
>
>People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
>solutions
>Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read about
>Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
>want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could make
>them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
>
>So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove "JS",
>we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
>
>That's my 2ctn
>
>Thanks
>
>Carlos
>
>
>2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the 'packaging'
>> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the naming
>>of
>> the product(s) of this project.
>>
>> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think is
>>an
>> excellent suggestion:
>>
>> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
>> IDE-friendly release
>> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and another
>> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have most of
>> that working.
>>
>> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the other
>>one
>> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean
>>"Royale
>> for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and
>> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
>>definitely
>> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
>> markets."
>>
>> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
>> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
>>
>> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple product
>>(e.g.
>> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should name
>>the
>> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have a
>> product with the same name as the project and then have other products
>>from
>> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
>>with a
>> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the various
>> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head,
>>just
>> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I.
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.ixsoftware.nl&data
>>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
>>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u
>>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0
>>
>
>
>
>--
>
><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
>scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo
>yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>Carlos Rovira
>
>Director General
>
>M: +34 607 22 60 05
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
>copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
>4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy
>L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
>s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a
>7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg
>4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>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: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I like Alex's idea and I don't see any problem if we will have clear
information on our website what is for what is not for. I actually was
waiting for some package which is small and free from Flash Player - and
here we go!
I have to admit since I did start using FlexJS I haven't touch SWF part at
all. If user come to the website and see Royale project, than go to
download page and will have nice description - We will not lost.
We need to remember only about possibility to switch - If I'm using "
apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip" I should be able to switch "
apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip".
It is only delivery - examples, tutorials etc. will not point to any
specific package, unless it is JS only like MDL examples.
Piotr
2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
>
> Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting the
> packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I actually
> think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
>
> I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on the
> Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel. We will only post
> one source artifact because the build script can generate both bundles
> based on environment variables. We will also post dozens of Jars and SWCs
> to Maven Central. And I think we will have an NPM distribution as well.
> For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also assume we
> are providing a .tar.gz file as well.
>
> Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a vote on
> a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z". The source artifact will be
> called:
>
> apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip
>
> We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users. They will be called:
>
> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires
> prerequisites)
>
> And:
>
> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is)
>
> If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still only
> have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact
> would be called.
>
> apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip
>
> I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names. We
> could call the "flexjs" artifact:
>
>
> apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip
>
> But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name
> somewhere.
>
> Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group id:
>
> org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars)
> org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs)
> org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs)
>
> Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids:
>
> org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler
> org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs
> org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework
>
> So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing that
> we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products primarily
> differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there might be a
> different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick their
> "product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or what SWCs
> they depend on.
>
>
> Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target platform.
> For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven Central:
>
>
>
> Basic-0.8.0-js.swc
> Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc
>
> I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use a
> classifier for WebASM some day as in:
>
> Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc
>
> Last is NPM. I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be
> wrong. But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by doing:
>
>
> npm install flexjs -g
>
>
> If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed
> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called
> royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type:
>
>
> npm install royale-flexjs -g
>
> And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of
> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via:
>
>
> npm install royale-js -g
>
> But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just unzip
> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it. Not sure if we need to make
> something available just by typing:
>
>
> npm install royale -g
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Alex
>
>
> On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> >names)
> >and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> >As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to dictate
> >if we want to target one or more outputs.
> >So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that could
> >output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> >
> >People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> >solutions
> >Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read about
> >Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> >want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could make
> >them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> >
> >So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove "JS",
> >we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> >
> >That's my 2ctn
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >
> >2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the 'packaging'
> >> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the naming
> >>of
> >> the product(s) of this project.
> >>
> >> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think is
> >>an
> >> excellent suggestion:
> >>
> >> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> >> IDE-friendly release
> >> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and another
> >> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have most of
> >> that working.
> >>
> >> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the other
> >>one
> >> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean
> >>"Royale
> >> for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and
> >> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
> >>definitely
> >> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> >> markets."
> >>
> >> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> >> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> >>
> >> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple product
> >>(e.g.
> >> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should name
> >>the
> >> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have a
> >> product with the same name as the project and then have other products
> >>from
> >> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
> >>with a
> >> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the various
> >> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head,
> >>just
> >> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> EdB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>
> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>
> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> I.
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> www.ixsoftware.nl&data
> >>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
> >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=
> nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u
> >>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo
> >yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >Carlos Rovira
> >
> >Director General
> >
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy
> >L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg
> >4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
> >información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
> >error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
> >proceda a su destrucción.
> >
> >De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> >comunicamos
> >que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
> >S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
> >servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
> >rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> >nuestras
> >oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
> >necesaria.
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>
GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
>
> So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people outside
> our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech.
>
Agreed on the "simple." But it may be better to have a few products that do
what they advertise to do instead of one monolithic product that I then
need to configure the heck out of to make it do what I want... And trust
me, as the "new" guy coming in, I can tell you from the past few days of
trying: it's already overwhelming when you try to get into Royale.
I'd rather have a few product preconfigured and ready to compile to my
intended output format out of the box, than one large one that I then have
to look up in the manual to see if I can find a combination of settings and
compiler configs to tame it.
EdB
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
While we have only JS and SWF at this time I would want to have all and
only one possible installation, and just use JS, SWF or both vía arguments
in IDEs or command line.
In the future, with more outputs implemented, I think we could invest time
in separating and making all pluggable, since I think we could have demand.
But this seems to me like is a 2.0 feature.
But this is just my opinion, and what I think we could get more traction
out there. Maybe others could share his thoughts on this.
Thanks
Carlos
2017-10-02 20:37 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> What files would:
>
> npm install royale -g
>
>
> put on your computer? The JS support only? Or also the SWF support? I
> think we can have more than one NPM artifact.
>
> Cordova seems to be doing fine with lots of plugins that are installed via
> other NPM calls. Maybe we can think of SWF support as a plugin. But for
> me, the first question is whether NPM users need a JS-only package or it
> would be easier/faster to just download and unzip the binary artifact?
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
> On 10/2/17, 11:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> >We must think in users as people doesn't know anythings about us. As well
> >people writing articles about us, will want to check quickly what we do,
> >and we need to be simple and fast.
> >So for me, if I use for example NPM, the last proposal is the correct one:
> >
> >npm install royale -g
> >
> >If people that land in Royale, see lots of combinations we'll be dead
> >before having the opportunity for that people to reach the great features
> >we can provide
> >
> >So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people outside
> >our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech.
> >
> >I must to say that we always can change this to something more complex in
> >the future as we get people demanding it, but I'd prefer not to do this at
> >this stage since I'm afraid to lost people due to excessive options,
> >packages and bundles.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >
> >> I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
> >>
> >> Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting the
> >> packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I actually
> >> think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
> >>
> >> I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on the
> >> Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel. We will only
> >>post
> >> one source artifact because the build script can generate both bundles
> >> based on environment variables. We will also post dozens of Jars and
> >>SWCs
> >> to Maven Central. And I think we will have an NPM distribution as well.
> >> For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also assume
> >>we
> >> are providing a .tar.gz file as well.
> >>
> >> Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a vote
> >>on
> >> a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z". The source artifact will be
> >> called:
> >>
> >> apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip
> >>
> >> We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users. They will be
> >>called:
> >>
> >> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires
> >> prerequisites)
> >>
> >> And:
> >>
> >> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is)
> >>
> >> If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still only
> >> have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact
> >> would be called.
> >>
> >> apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip
> >>
> >> I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names. We
> >> could call the "flexjs" artifact:
> >>
> >>
> >> apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip
> >>
> >> But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name
> >> somewhere.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group id:
> >>
> >> org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars)
> >> org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs)
> >> org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs)
> >>
> >> Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids:
> >>
> >> org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler
> >> org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs
> >> org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework
> >>
> >> So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing that
> >> we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products primarily
> >> differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there might be a
> >> different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick their
> >> "product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or what SWCs
> >> they depend on.
> >>
> >>
> >> Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target platform.
> >> For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven Central:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Basic-0.8.0-js.swc
> >> Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc
> >>
> >> I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use a
> >> classifier for WebASM some day as in:
> >>
> >> Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc
> >>
> >> Last is NPM. I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be
> >> wrong. But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by doing:
> >>
> >>
> >> npm install flexjs -g
> >>
> >>
> >> If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed
> >> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called
> >> royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type:
> >>
> >>
> >> npm install royale-flexjs -g
> >>
> >> And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of
> >> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via:
> >>
> >>
> >> npm install royale-js -g
> >>
> >> But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just
> >>unzip
> >> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it. Not sure if we need to make
> >> something available just by typing:
> >>
> >>
> >> npm install royale -g
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>Rovira"
> >> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> >> >names)
> >> >and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> >> >As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> >>dictate
> >> >if we want to target one or more outputs.
> >> >So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> >>could
> >> >output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> >> >
> >> >People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> >> >solutions
> >> >Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read
> >>about
> >> >Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> >> >want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could make
> >> >them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> >> >
> >> >So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> >>"JS",
> >> >we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> >> >
> >> >That's my 2ctn
> >> >
> >> >Thanks
> >> >
> >> >Carlos
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the 'packaging'
> >> >> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> >>naming
> >> >>of
> >> >> the product(s) of this project.
> >> >>
> >> >> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think
> >>is
> >> >>an
> >> >> excellent suggestion:
> >> >>
> >> >> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> >> >> IDE-friendly release
> >> >> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and
> >>another
> >> >> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have
> >>most of
> >> >> that working.
> >> >>
> >> >> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> >>other
> >> >>one
> >> >> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean
> >> >>"Royale
> >> >> for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
> >>and
> >> >> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
> >> >>definitely
> >> >> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> >> >> markets."
> >> >>
> >> >> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> >> >> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple product
> >> >>(e.g.
> >> >> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> >>name
> >> >>the
> >> >> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have a
> >> >> product with the same name as the project and then have other
> >>products
> >> >>from
> >> >> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
> >> >>with a
> >> >> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the various
> >> >> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head,
> >> >>just
> >> >> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think?
> >> >>
> >> >> EdB
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >> >>
> >> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >> >>
> >> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> >> I.
> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> www.ixsoftware.nl&data
> >>=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c180f9%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
> >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&sdata=
> EBHVOJ4%2B0zMc4QzDQjY7%2F8Cac
> >>iosI7i%2FwjDqc%2BgUNME%3D&reserved=0&data
> >> >>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%
> >> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
> >> >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=
> >> nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u
> >> >>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >
> >> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> >> >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> >> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> >> >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> >> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo
> >> >yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0>
> >> >
> >> >Carlos Rovira
> >> >
> >> >Director General
> >> >
> >> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >> >
> >> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> >> >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> >> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> >> >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> >> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy
> >> >L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> >> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> >> >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> >> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >> >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> >> sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg
> >> >4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c1
> 80f9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&
> sdata=yNM3fkjhOQFcHh8l
> >5xP2yqDAKuSAPt4FCGbgFB61UfA%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >Carlos Rovira
> >
> >Director General
> >
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c1
> 80f9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&
> sdata=yNM3fkjhOQFcHh8l5
> >xP2yqDAKuSAPt4FCGbgFB61UfA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c1
> 80f9%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&
> sdata=w3rN5aSsyqnsIx
> >o0SKQH9UQesdkbLJW3U%2F5dw8OspVU%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> >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.
>
>
--
<http://www.codeoscopic.com>
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
proceda a su destrucción.
De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos
que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras
oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
necesaria.
Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
What files would:
npm install royale -g
put on your computer? The JS support only? Or also the SWF support? I
think we can have more than one NPM artifact.
Cordova seems to be doing fine with lots of plugins that are installed via
other NPM calls. Maybe we can think of SWF support as a plugin. But for
me, the first question is whether NPM users need a JS-only package or it
would be easier/faster to just download and unzip the binary artifact?
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 10/2/17, 11:14 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>We must think in users as people doesn't know anythings about us. As well
>people writing articles about us, will want to check quickly what we do,
>and we need to be simple and fast.
>So for me, if I use for example NPM, the last proposal is the correct one:
>
>npm install royale -g
>
>If people that land in Royale, see lots of combinations we'll be dead
>before having the opportunity for that people to reach the great features
>we can provide
>
>So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people outside
>our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech.
>
>I must to say that we always can change this to something more complex in
>the future as we get people demanding it, but I'd prefer not to do this at
>this stage since I'm afraid to lost people due to excessive options,
>packages and bundles.
>
>
>
>
>2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>> I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
>>
>> Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting the
>> packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I actually
>> think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
>>
>> I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on the
>> Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel. We will only
>>post
>> one source artifact because the build script can generate both bundles
>> based on environment variables. We will also post dozens of Jars and
>>SWCs
>> to Maven Central. And I think we will have an NPM distribution as well.
>> For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also assume
>>we
>> are providing a .tar.gz file as well.
>>
>> Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a vote
>>on
>> a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z". The source artifact will be
>> called:
>>
>> apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip
>>
>> We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users. They will be
>>called:
>>
>> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires
>> prerequisites)
>>
>> And:
>>
>> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is)
>>
>> If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still only
>> have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact
>> would be called.
>>
>> apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip
>>
>> I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names. We
>> could call the "flexjs" artifact:
>>
>>
>> apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip
>>
>> But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name
>> somewhere.
>>
>> Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group id:
>>
>> org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars)
>> org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs)
>> org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs)
>>
>> Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids:
>>
>> org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler
>> org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs
>> org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework
>>
>> So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing that
>> we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products primarily
>> differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there might be a
>> different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick their
>> "product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or what SWCs
>> they depend on.
>>
>>
>> Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target platform.
>> For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven Central:
>>
>>
>>
>> Basic-0.8.0-js.swc
>> Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc
>>
>> I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use a
>> classifier for WebASM some day as in:
>>
>> Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc
>>
>> Last is NPM. I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be
>> wrong. But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by doing:
>>
>>
>> npm install flexjs -g
>>
>>
>> If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed
>> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called
>> royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type:
>>
>>
>> npm install royale-flexjs -g
>>
>> And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of
>> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via:
>>
>>
>> npm install royale-js -g
>>
>> But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just
>>unzip
>> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it. Not sure if we need to make
>> something available just by typing:
>>
>>
>> npm install royale -g
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>> On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>Rovira"
>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
>> >names)
>> >and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
>> >As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
>>dictate
>> >if we want to target one or more outputs.
>> >So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
>>could
>> >output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
>> >
>> >People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
>> >solutions
>> >Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read
>>about
>> >Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
>> >want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could make
>> >them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
>> >
>> >So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
>>"JS",
>> >we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
>> >
>> >That's my 2ctn
>> >
>> >Thanks
>> >
>> >Carlos
>> >
>> >
>> >2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the 'packaging'
>> >> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
>>naming
>> >>of
>> >> the product(s) of this project.
>> >>
>> >> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think
>>is
>> >>an
>> >> excellent suggestion:
>> >>
>> >> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
>> >> IDE-friendly release
>> >> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and
>>another
>> >> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have
>>most of
>> >> that working.
>> >>
>> >> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
>>other
>> >>one
>> >> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean
>> >>"Royale
>> >> for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version>
>>and
>> >> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
>> >>definitely
>> >> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
>> >> markets."
>> >>
>> >> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
>> >> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
>> >>
>> >> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple product
>> >>(e.g.
>> >> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
>>name
>> >>the
>> >> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have a
>> >> product with the same name as the project and then have other
>>products
>> >>from
>> >> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
>> >>with a
>> >> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the various
>> >> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head,
>> >>just
>> >> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> EdB
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Ix Multimedia Software
>> >>
>> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
>> >>
>> >> T. 06-51952295
>> >> I.
>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.ixsoftware.nl&data
>>=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c180f9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
>>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&sdata=EBHVOJ4%2B0zMc4QzDQjY7%2F8Cac
>>iosI7i%2FwjDqc%2BgUNME%3D&reserved=0&data
>> >>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%
>> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
>> >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=
>> nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u
>> >>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
>> >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
>> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>> >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
>> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo
>> >yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0>
>> >
>> >Carlos Rovira
>> >
>> >Director General
>> >
>> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> >
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
>> >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
>> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
>> >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
>> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy
>> >L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> >
>> >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
>> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
>> >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
>> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a
>> >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
>> sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg
>> >4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0>
>> >
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
>scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c180f9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&sdata=yNM3fkjhOQFcHh8l
>5xP2yqDAKuSAPt4FCGbgFB61UfA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>Carlos Rovira
>
>Director General
>
>M: +34 607 22 60 05
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
>copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c180f9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
>4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&sdata=yNM3fkjhOQFcHh8l5
>xP2yqDAKuSAPt4FCGbgFB61UfA%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
>s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C644713b9db0e491fb18808d509c180f9%7Cfa7b1b5a
>7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425649058258563&sdata=w3rN5aSsyqnsIx
>o0SKQH9UQesdkbLJW3U%2F5dw8OspVU%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>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: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Posted by Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ng...@idylog.com>.
All of this is perfectly true.
Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : carlos.rovira@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com] De la
> part de Carlos Rovira
> Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2017 20:15
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
>
> We must think in users as people doesn't know anythings about us. As
> well people writing articles about us, will want to check quickly what
> we do, and we need to be simple and fast.
> So for me, if I use for example NPM, the last proposal is the correct
> one:
>
> npm install royale -g
>
> If people that land in Royale, see lots of combinations we'll be dead
> before having the opportunity for that people to reach the great
> features we can provide
>
> So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people
> outside our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech.
>
> I must to say that we always can change this to something more complex
> in the future as we get people demanding it, but I'd prefer not to do
> this at this stage since I'm afraid to lost people due to excessive
> options, packages and bundles.
>
>
>
>
> 2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
> > I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
> >
> > Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting
> the
> > packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I
> > actually think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
> >
> > I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on
> > the Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel. We will
> > only post one source artifact because the build script can generate
> > both bundles based on environment variables. We will also post
> dozens
> > of Jars and SWCs to Maven Central. And I think we will have an NPM
> distribution as well.
> > For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also
> > assume we are providing a .tar.gz file as well.
> >
> > Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a
> vote
> > on a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z". The source artifact will
> > be
> > called:
> >
> > apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip
> >
> > We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users. They will be
> called:
> >
> > apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires
> > prerequisites)
> >
> > And:
> >
> > apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is)
> >
> > If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still
> only
> > have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact
> > would be called.
> >
> > apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip
> >
> > I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names.
> > We could call the "flexjs" artifact:
> >
> >
> > apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip
> >
> > But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name
> > somewhere.
> >
> > Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group
> id:
> >
> > org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars)
> > org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs)
> > org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs)
> >
> > Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids:
> >
> > org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler
> > org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs
> > org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework
> >
> > So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing
> > that we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products
> > primarily differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there
> might
> > be a different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick
> > their "product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or
> > what SWCs they depend on.
> >
> >
> > Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target
> platform.
> > For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven
> Central:
> >
> >
> >
> > Basic-0.8.0-js.swc
> > Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc
> >
> > I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use
> > a classifier for WebASM some day as in:
> >
> > Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc
> >
> > Last is NPM. I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be
> > wrong. But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by
> doing:
> >
> >
> > npm install flexjs -g
> >
> >
> > If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed
> > apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called
> > royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type:
> >
> >
> > npm install royale-flexjs -g
> >
> > And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of
> > apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via:
> >
> >
> > npm install royale-js -g
> >
> > But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just
> > unzip apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it. Not sure if we need
> > to make something available just by typing:
> >
> >
> > npm install royale -g
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> > On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> Rovira"
> > <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> > >names)
> > >and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > >As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> > >dictate if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > >So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> > >could output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > >
> > >People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> > >solutions Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will
> come
> > >to read about Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
> > >don't want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that
> > >could make them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > >
> > >So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> > >"JS", we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > >
> > >That's my 2ctn
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> 'packaging'
> > >> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> > >>naming of the product(s) of this project.
> > >>
> > >> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I
> think
> > >>is an excellent suggestion:
> > >>
> > >> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> > >> IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks migrating
> > >> from Apache Flex and another for folks not interested in SWF. In
> > >> the packaging branch I have most of that working.
> > >>
> > >> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> > >>other one Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some
> > >>folks to mean "Royale for JS". The package names would be
> > >>apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and maybe
> > >>apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would definitely
> > >>be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> > >>markets."
> > >>
> > >> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> > >> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> > >>
> > >> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> > >>product (e.g.
> > >> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> > >>name the current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
> > >>confusing to have a product with the same name as the project and
> > >>then have other products from the same project with totally
> > >>different names. I suggest we come up with a naming convention
> that
> > >>will reflect the functionality of the various products and their
> > >>link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head, just to show
> > >>what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> EdB
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ix Multimedia Software
> > >>
> > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > >>
> > >> T. 06-51952295
> > >> I.
> > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > www.ixsoftware.nl&data
> > >>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%
> > 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
> > >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=
> > nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u
> > >>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >
> > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> > >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> > >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> > sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo
> > >yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0>
> > >
> > >Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >Director General
> > >
> > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> > >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> > >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> > sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy
> > >L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> > >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a
> > >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> > sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg
> > >4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0>
> > >
> > >
> > >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.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
>
> Carlos Rovira
>
> Director General
>
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>
>
> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
>
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
> mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por
> esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
>
> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> comunicamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable
> es CODEOSCOPIC S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> prestación del servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036,
> Madrid con la documentación necesaria.
Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
We must think in users as people doesn't know anythings about us. As well
people writing articles about us, will want to check quickly what we do,
and we need to be simple and fast.
So for me, if I use for example NPM, the last proposal is the correct one:
npm install royale -g
If people that land in Royale, see lots of combinations we'll be dead
before having the opportunity for that people to reach the great features
we can provide
So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people outside
our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech.
I must to say that we always can change this to something more complex in
the future as we get people demanding it, but I'd prefer not to do this at
this stage since I'm afraid to lost people due to excessive options,
packages and bundles.
2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
>
> Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting the
> packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I actually
> think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
>
> I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on the
> Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel. We will only post
> one source artifact because the build script can generate both bundles
> based on environment variables. We will also post dozens of Jars and SWCs
> to Maven Central. And I think we will have an NPM distribution as well.
> For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also assume we
> are providing a .tar.gz file as well.
>
> Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a vote on
> a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z". The source artifact will be
> called:
>
> apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip
>
> We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users. They will be called:
>
> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires
> prerequisites)
>
> And:
>
> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is)
>
> If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still only
> have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact
> would be called.
>
> apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip
>
> I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names. We
> could call the "flexjs" artifact:
>
>
> apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip
>
> But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name
> somewhere.
>
> Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group id:
>
> org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars)
> org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs)
> org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs)
>
> Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids:
>
> org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler
> org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs
> org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework
>
> So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing that
> we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products primarily
> differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there might be a
> different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick their
> "product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or what SWCs
> they depend on.
>
>
> Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target platform.
> For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven Central:
>
>
>
> Basic-0.8.0-js.swc
> Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc
>
> I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use a
> classifier for WebASM some day as in:
>
> Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc
>
> Last is NPM. I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be
> wrong. But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by doing:
>
>
> npm install flexjs -g
>
>
> If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed
> apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called
> royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type:
>
>
> npm install royale-flexjs -g
>
> And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of
> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via:
>
>
> npm install royale-js -g
>
> But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just unzip
> apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it. Not sure if we need to make
> something available just by typing:
>
>
> npm install royale -g
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Alex
>
>
> On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> >names)
> >and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> >As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to dictate
> >if we want to target one or more outputs.
> >So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that could
> >output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> >
> >People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> >solutions
> >Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will come to read about
> >Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We don't
> >want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that could make
> >them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> >
> >So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove "JS",
> >we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> >
> >That's my 2ctn
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Carlos
> >
> >
> >2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the 'packaging'
> >> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the naming
> >>of
> >> the product(s) of this project.
> >>
> >> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I think is
> >>an
> >> excellent suggestion:
> >>
> >> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> >> IDE-friendly release
> >> artifacts, one designed for folks migrating from Apache Flex and another
> >> for folks not interested in SWF. In the packaging branch I have most of
> >> that working.
> >>
> >> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the other
> >>one
> >> Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some folks to mean
> >>"Royale
> >> for JS". The package names would be apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and
> >> maybe apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would
> >>definitely
> >> be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> >> markets."
> >>
> >> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> >> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> >>
> >> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple product
> >>(e.g.
> >> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should name
> >>the
> >> current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly confusing to have a
> >> product with the same name as the project and then have other products
> >>from
> >> the same project with totally different names. I suggest we come up
> >>with a
> >> naming convention that will reflect the functionality of the various
> >> products and their link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head,
> >>just
> >> to show what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> EdB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>
> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>
> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> I.
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> www.ixsoftware.nl&data
> >>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%
> 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
> >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=
> nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u
> >>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo
> >yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >Carlos Rovira
> >
> >Director General
> >
> >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy
> >L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg
> >4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> >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.
>
>
--
<http://www.codeoscopic.com>
Carlos Rovira
Director General
M: +34 607 22 60 05
http://www.codeoscopic.com
Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener
información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por
error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y
proceda a su destrucción.
De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos
que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC
S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras
oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación
necesaria.