You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com> on 2012/05/31 00:19:21 UTC
Re: [MENTOR] source package questions
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Does this mean that we can include the apache jars that we use in our source package? How about in our binary package?
My preference would be that these files are downloaded as part of the
build process. Looking at the list, I'm not sure if they are all still
available and I'm not sure they are all Apache jars. I guess these are
dependencies? We'd need to treat them like any other dependency I
think.
> 2. We've run RAT. We currently have a few hundred files flagged as binaries. Many of them are asset files. Is there some sort of exception process for these?
I can't really comment on this. I would assume there's a way to do
this, but I don't know.
> 3. If you have a .fla file which is a source file for Adobe Flash Professional does that mean we have to require Adobe Flash Professional as a prerequisite build tool? We have other similar situations which involve different apps/tools to produce different assets.
Is Flash Pro required to run a successful build? If so, then I guess
we do need it as a requirement. If not then it's optional I guess.
Sorry for my non-definitive answers. I don't really have the
experience to offer definitive ones, so hopefully some others can
chime in to confirm or correct.
Greg
Re: [MENTOR] source package questions
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 5/30/12 3:32 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 3. If you have a .fla file which is a source file for Adobe Flash
>> Professional does that mean we have to require Adobe Flash Professional as
>> a prerequisite build tool? We have other similar situations which involve
>> different apps/tools to produce different assets.
>>
>> Is Flash Pro required to run a successful build? If so, then I guess we do
>> need it as a requirement. If not then it's optional I guess.
>>
>
> Not sure if it makes it any clearer, but I would put it this way:
>
> Flash Pro is to a .swf asset AS Photoshop/Gimp/MSPaint is to a .jpg file
>
> One does not require Photoshop/Gimp/MSPaint to render a .jpg file, but one
> definitely needs such a tool to modify it.
>
> I dont think we are planning to *build* any source code using Flash Pro.
That's not quite a fair analogy. Flash Pro does not modify SWFs per se. A
SWF is an executable or library output by Flash Pro from a source FLA file.
One of the interesting wrinkles here is that one of the jobs of the Flex
Compiler is to consume a SWF file from Flash Pro. The question really is
about whether external content needs to be built or not. Imagine some
Apache project wanted to create a PDF viewer. Would it need to build its
PDFs from source DOCX files and have MS Word in the workflow?
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTOR] source package questions
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
>
> 3. If you have a .fla file which is a source file for Adobe Flash
> Professional does that mean we have to require Adobe Flash Professional as
> a prerequisite build tool? We have other similar situations which involve
> different apps/tools to produce different assets.
>
> Is Flash Pro required to run a successful build? If so, then I guess we do
> need it as a requirement. If not then it's optional I guess.
>
Not sure if it makes it any clearer, but I would put it this way:
Flash Pro is to a .swf asset AS Photoshop/Gimp/MSPaint is to a .jpg file
One does not require Photoshop/Gimp/MSPaint to render a .jpg file, but one
definitely needs such a tool to modify it.
I dont think we are planning to *build* any source code using Flash Pro.
Re: [MENTOR] source package questions
Posted by Left Right <ol...@gmail.com>.
>
> Yes, if we have to, we can probably transform these FLAs into AS projects,
> but you lose the ability to edit the assets in a tool like Flash Pro later.
>
> Well, that's the disadvantage of proprietary tools... I can't edit those
files anyway.
Best.
Oleg
Re: [MENTOR] source package questions
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 5/30/12 11:47 PM, "olegsivokon@gmail.com" <ol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex, is the FLA File that you mention the one that has icons for
> components / default image icon etc? I mean, it doesn't have any code,
> right? If so, maybe we could redo it using SWFMill or similar? I kind of
> suspected before this may be a problem.
> Or, if not SWFMill, we could then have it as a SWF + images + an AS project
> that compiles it, where SWFs / images would be just assets.
> Besides, this would give us a chance to correct the ugly names of the
> assets...
Yes, if we have to, we can probably transform these FLAs into AS projects,
but you lose the ability to edit the assets in a tool like Flash Pro later.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: [MENTOR] source package questions
Posted by Left Right <ol...@gmail.com>.
Alex, is the FLA File that you mention the one that has icons for
components / default image icon etc? I mean, it doesn't have any code,
right? If so, maybe we could redo it using SWFMill or similar? I kind of
suspected before this may be a problem.
Or, if not SWFMill, we could then have it as a SWF + images + an AS project
that compiles it, where SWFs / images would be just assets.
Besides, this would give us a chance to correct the ugly names of the
assets...
Best.
Oleg
Re: [MENTOR] source package questions
Posted by Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>.
On 5/30/12 6 :19PM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Carol Frampton <cf...@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>> Does this mean that we can include the apache jars that we use in our
>>source package? How about in our binary package?
>
>My preference would be that these files are downloaded as part of the
>build process. Looking at the list, I'm not sure if they are all still
>available and I'm not sure they are all Apache jars. I guess these are
>dependencies? We'd need to treat them like any other dependency I
>think.
So we currently download the apache jars that we are dependent on other
than the velocity/batik ones that they included in their source kit and we
now include in our source kit. I'm assuming we don't have to clean up
velocity and batik and we can leave their jars in our source kit since
they had them in their source kit.
Carol