You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> on 2019/05/21 19:13:54 UTC
Problems building with Maven from scratch
Hi,
I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we could
have.
So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
dependencies
I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
And build failed in Core:
[*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
*(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
Downloading from apache-snapshots:
http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
Downloading from apache.snapshots:
https://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
[*INFO*]
*------------------------------------------------------------------------*
[*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
[*INFO*]
[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ................... *SUCCESS* [
1.597 s]
[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ........................... *SUCCESS* [
0.239 s]
[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts .................... *SUCCESS* [
3.678 s]
[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs ..................... *SUCCESS* [
0.576 s]
[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ............... *SUCCESS* [
4.432 s]
[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............ *FAILURE* [
0.663 s]
[*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........ *SKIPPED*
The error is
[*INFO*]
*------------------------------------------------------------------------*
[*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
[*INFO*]
*------------------------------------------------------------------------*
[*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
[*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
[*INFO*]
*------------------------------------------------------------------------*
[*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
*(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Missing:*
[*ERROR*] *----------*
[*ERROR*] *1) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project website.*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
[*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
-DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
-Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
-Dfile=/path/to/file*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy
the file there: *
[*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
-DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
-Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
-Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
[*ERROR*] * 1) org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
[*ERROR*] * 2) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] *----------*
[*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
[*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
[*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/
<http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/>, releases=false, snapshots=true),*
[*ERROR*] * apache-release
(https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
<https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>,
releases=true, snapshots=false),*
[*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (https://repository.apache.org/snapshots
<https://repository.apache.org/snapshots>, releases=false, snapshots=true),*
[*ERROR*] * central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
<https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2>, releases=true, snapshots=false)*
[*ERROR*]
[*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
Someone knows the way to solve this?
I don't know if this is something related to some change in past months, or
maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things without
success.
Thanks in advance for any advice on this
Carlos
[1]
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
I will not have time to respond until about 20 hours from now.
You can check mail archives for "Maven" which might help.
-Alex
On 5/21/19, 10:04 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
One other thing, just to share another observation...
At the project level :
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fblob%2Fa89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5%2F.mvn%2Fextensions.xml&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472103933&sdata=lSDd267ZXibOUYplIFNplz9SK46REKydL20m7sXS750%3D&reserved=0
has an extension reference for 'flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension'
Is this obsolete? I commented out the <extension> node in that in
royale-asjs and it gets rid of the following warning at the beginning of
the build, without (so far, I think) any adverse effects.
[WARNING] The POM for
org.apache.flex.utilities.converter:flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension:jar:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
is missing, no dependency information available
[WARNING] Failed to read extensions descriptor
C:\development\asf\royale-asjs\.mvn\extensions.xml: Plugin
org.apache.flex.utilities.converter:flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: Could not find artifact
org.apache.flex.utilities.converter:flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension:jar:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
This seems present in the compiler also.
It might be nice to get rid of a few warnings, obviously more so if it is
because we have anything in there that is obsolete (but I am not sure about
this part).
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:35 PM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two things as follow up:
> (1)
> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my m2/settings.xml.
>
> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepo.adobe.com%2Fnexus%2Fcontent%2Fgroups%2Fpublic&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472103933&sdata=txEVmSZLeCe%2FnGreApXTfAq%2BSnA9sCS5pixNxCXsSqk%3D&reserved=0
>
> (2)
> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows. This
> was a tough one to find.
> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommit%2Fa89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=a9VaMIJ7ynahRw6vwerx9Wj8k0ckd3G6yCvbQGchRvg%3D&reserved=0
> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fblob%2Fa89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5%2Fpom.xml%23L62&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=i8v2WqAOywsSbYItA433ftw%2BwN9uJ4CCne68rRDN%2FiI%3D&reserved=0
>
> I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional. Alex,
> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:15 AM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I tried building the compiler after deleting the playerglobal part of m2.
>> It failed on the tests. But you are skipping tests which should be
>> optional.
>>
>> I manged to get that working by adding :
>>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
>> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
>> <version>${flash.version}</version>
>> <type>swc</type>
>> <scope>test</scope>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> to the bottom of the royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>> (I put it in test scope which seemed 'right' for me, but I am not a maven
>> expert!)
>>
>> I will see what happens with the rest of the build, which is proceeding.
>> I will try to repro your issue.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:53 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greg,
>>> I tried to copy
>>>
>>> m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>>>
>>> folder (I have there 11.1, 15.0, 20.0 and 27.0), but the error is the
>>> same
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 22:26, Carlos Rovira (<
>>> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> > ok Greg
>>> >
>>> > thanks for trying. I'm afraid that others trying Royale for the first
>>> time
>>> > find stuck in this kind of error.
>>> > Finally I'd like to make a video tutorial with something from scratch
>>> > since people is demanding it
>>> > So getting things working from 0 would be great to plan that video
>>> >
>>> > thanks
>>> >
>>> > Carlos
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 21:47, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
>>> > escribió:
>>> >
>>> >> In the past I had issues I think sometimes with missing correct
>>> >> playerglobal. I recall one time manually installing it in
>>> >>
>>> >> .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>>> >>
>>> >> iirc this is something that may not be apparent unless you have a
>>> fresh
>>> >> start with maven.
>>> >> I will try the same thing later today, and see if I have the same
>>> issue.
>>> >> If
>>> >> it is that issue, then maybe it can be solved by declaring it in a
>>> pom.xml
>>> >> (e.g. for Binding) - I will see if I can figure it out.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:14 AM Carlos Rovira <
>>> carlosrovira@apache.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we
>>> >> could
>>> >> > have.
>>> >> > So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
>>> >> > dependencies
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
>>> >> >
>>> >> > but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
>>> >> >
>>> >> > And build failed in Core:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>>> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Downloading from apache-snapshots:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fsnapshots%2Forg%2Fapache%2Froyale%2Fframework%2FCore%2F0.9.6-SNAPSHOT%2FCore-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=72VMlzOz4OC4%2FCDvKCCfUYnNI5kX%2FuJ4%2Fw%2FxTT9mux0%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Downloading from apache.snapshots:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fsnapshots%2Forg%2Fapache%2Froyale%2Fframework%2FCore%2F0.9.6-SNAPSHOT%2FCore-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=%2BH05tFzefMu3KyC4fScAECCSm7xwOW7RWLA%2BUV2gIac%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
>>> >> > 0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ...................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 1.597 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ...........................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 0.239 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts ....................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 3.678 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs .....................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 0.576 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ...............
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 4.432 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............
>>> *FAILURE*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 0.663 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........
>>> *SKIPPED*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The error is
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
>>> >> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>>> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
>>> >> > dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason:
>>> Missing:*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *1)
>>> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project
>>> >> website.*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
>>> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>>> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>>> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can
>>> >> deploy
>>> >> > the file there: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
>>> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>>> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>>> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * 1)
>>> org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * 2)
>>> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (
>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fsnapshots%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=rMQkzTH0Efe%2FAa7fNJyzeE61IYjd%2FPX%2FSutnpmv0wE0%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fsnapshots%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=rMQkzTH0Efe%2FAa7fNJyzeE61IYjd%2FPX%2FSutnpmv0wE0%3D&reserved=0>, releases=false,
>>> >> > snapshots=true),*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-release
>>> >> > (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Freleases&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=iI%2FRUoIHg9NrV3X1feaUg0infvjO3BXiBlVJkxJNkdo%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Freleases&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=iI%2FRUoIHg9NrV3X1feaUg0infvjO3BXiBlVJkxJNkdo%3D&reserved=0>,
>>> >> > releases=true, snapshots=false),*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (
>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fsnapshots&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=lNaRCTdwpCVayCJiy1kjB5Fxt8Sk%2F9sa1mSVJd7qIHQ%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fsnapshots&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=lNaRCTdwpCVayCJiy1kjB5Fxt8Sk%2F9sa1mSVJd7qIHQ%3D&reserved=0>, releases=false,
>>> >> > snapshots=true),*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * central (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepo.maven.apache.org%2Fmaven2&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=pmVx65TQ9Gw7FGBdkDzSNp1eRIg4J%2BdXjkXXss7XdTs%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepo.maven.apache.org%2Fmaven2&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=pmVx65TQ9Gw7FGBdkDzSNp1eRIg4J%2BdXjkXXss7XdTs%3D&reserved=0>, releases=true,
>>> >> snapshots=false)*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Someone knows the way to solve this?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I don't know if this is something related to some change in past
>>> >> months, or
>>> >> > maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things
>>> without
>>> >> > success.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks in advance for any advice on this
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Carlos
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [1]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=L6EQ0HSz1LIgwXpTwr5OasFdq8iUvvemnLW%2BkpPiT8k%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Carlos Rovira
>>> >> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=LPc3CusrI7k60kA6CrbimJEPhFnHr3mahelbL54FMMI%3D&reserved=0
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Carlos Rovira
>>> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=LPc3CusrI7k60kA6CrbimJEPhFnHr3mahelbL54FMMI%3D&reserved=0
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfff341b00a5f4502127808d6de72e95e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636940982472113926&sdata=LPc3CusrI7k60kA6CrbimJEPhFnHr3mahelbL54FMMI%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
One other thing, just to share another observation...
At the project level :
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5/.mvn/extensions.xml
has an extension reference for 'flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension'
Is this obsolete? I commented out the <extension> node in that in
royale-asjs and it gets rid of the following warning at the beginning of
the build, without (so far, I think) any adverse effects.
[WARNING] The POM for
org.apache.flex.utilities.converter:flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension:jar:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
is missing, no dependency information available
[WARNING] Failed to read extensions descriptor
C:\development\asf\royale-asjs\.mvn\extensions.xml: Plugin
org.apache.flex.utilities.converter:flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: Could not find artifact
org.apache.flex.utilities.converter:flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension:jar:1.0.0-SNAPSHOT
This seems present in the compiler also.
It might be nice to get rid of a few warnings, obviously more so if it is
because we have anything in there that is obsolete (but I am not sure about
this part).
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 4:35 PM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two things as follow up:
> (1)
> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my m2/settings.xml.
>
> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
> https://repo.adobe.com/nexus/content/groups/public
>
> (2)
> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows. This
> was a tough one to find.
> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5
> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5/pom.xml#L62
>
> I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional. Alex,
> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:15 AM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I tried building the compiler after deleting the playerglobal part of m2.
>> It failed on the tests. But you are skipping tests which should be
>> optional.
>>
>> I manged to get that working by adding :
>>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
>> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
>> <version>${flash.version}</version>
>> <type>swc</type>
>> <scope>test</scope>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> to the bottom of the royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
>> (I put it in test scope which seemed 'right' for me, but I am not a maven
>> expert!)
>>
>> I will see what happens with the rest of the build, which is proceeding.
>> I will try to repro your issue.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:53 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greg,
>>> I tried to copy
>>>
>>> m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>>>
>>> folder (I have there 11.1, 15.0, 20.0 and 27.0), but the error is the
>>> same
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 22:26, Carlos Rovira (<
>>> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> > ok Greg
>>> >
>>> > thanks for trying. I'm afraid that others trying Royale for the first
>>> time
>>> > find stuck in this kind of error.
>>> > Finally I'd like to make a video tutorial with something from scratch
>>> > since people is demanding it
>>> > So getting things working from 0 would be great to plan that video
>>> >
>>> > thanks
>>> >
>>> > Carlos
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 21:47, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
>>> > escribió:
>>> >
>>> >> In the past I had issues I think sometimes with missing correct
>>> >> playerglobal. I recall one time manually installing it in
>>> >>
>>> >> .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>>> >>
>>> >> iirc this is something that may not be apparent unless you have a
>>> fresh
>>> >> start with maven.
>>> >> I will try the same thing later today, and see if I have the same
>>> issue.
>>> >> If
>>> >> it is that issue, then maybe it can be solved by declaring it in a
>>> pom.xml
>>> >> (e.g. for Binding) - I will see if I can figure it out.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:14 AM Carlos Rovira <
>>> carlosrovira@apache.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we
>>> >> could
>>> >> > have.
>>> >> > So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
>>> >> > dependencies
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
>>> >> >
>>> >> > but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
>>> >> >
>>> >> > And build failed in Core:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>>> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Downloading from apache-snapshots:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Downloading from apache.snapshots:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
>>> >> > 0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ...................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 1.597 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ...........................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 0.239 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts ....................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 3.678 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs .....................
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 0.576 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ...............
>>> *SUCCESS*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 4.432 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............
>>> *FAILURE*
>>> >> [
>>> >> > 0.663 s]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........
>>> *SKIPPED*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The error is
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*INFO*]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
>>> >> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>>> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
>>> >> > dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason:
>>> Missing:*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *1)
>>> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project
>>> >> website.*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
>>> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>>> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>>> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can
>>> >> deploy
>>> >> > the file there: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
>>> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>>> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>>> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * 1)
>>> org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * 2)
>>> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (
>>> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/
>>> >> > <http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/>, releases=false,
>>> >> > snapshots=true),*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-release
>>> >> > (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
>>> >> > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>,
>>> >> > releases=true, snapshots=false),*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (
>>> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots
>>> >> > <https://repository.apache.org/snapshots>, releases=false,
>>> >> > snapshots=true),*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] * central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
>>> >> > <https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2>, releases=true,
>>> >> snapshots=false)*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Someone knows the way to solve this?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I don't know if this is something related to some change in past
>>> >> months, or
>>> >> > maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things
>>> without
>>> >> > success.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thanks in advance for any advice on this
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Carlos
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [1]
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Carlos Rovira
>>> >> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Carlos Rovira
>>> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>>
>>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Going to the Hello World stage - yes we definitely shorten this path and
whoever I meet he is able to do such, but they are getting lost moving just
a bit forward.
This is mostly due to two things:
1) Users straightforward thinking that Royale is exactly same as Flex, but
it is not - we have similarities
2) They cannot find straightforward examples nor documentation to get
enough knowledge
I don't want to dive deeper, but apart of what I have said above we are
pretty good.
Thanks,
Piotr
pt., 24 maj 2019 o 12:34 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> napisał(a):
> Ok Piotr,
> so talking now only about "SDK user" case you think new users coming like
> Adrian or others are currently ok and are successful using (I suppose) the
> latest nightly build? If that's true is a success for Royale without doubt.
>
> thanks
>
> El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 10:31, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > Good example of user was Adrian who have started look into the Royale. He
> > wasn't even thinking about going into the frameworks code, so his first
> > attempt was - how to use it and build multiplatform application? Not how
> to
> > build framework and fix it? - cause if you coming to technology and have
> to
> > fix it in the first place to be able to work with - what kind of
> impression
> > do you have about it ?
> >
> > I believe only fraction of users whether they will be ActionScript or non
> > AS developers would go deeper into framework - And even if they are I
> > expect those will be people who definitely won't be afraid made some
> custom
> > setup to get to the point.
> >
> > Above conclusions were coming not from Adrian's case only, believe me :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > pt., 24 maj 2019 o 10:14 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > >
> > > yes you'r right. But we want both, users and developers.
> > > Right now users are covered with SDK nightly builds, and we just need
> to
> > > get official SDKs generated easily (hopefully thanks to the current
> Alex
> > > effort) in short period of time (maybe monthly?)
> > > The other option is what we're covering here as you stated: developers.
> > The
> > > problem was that a dev that wants to join us and use maven was not able
> > to
> > > do that some days ago, and we need to continue improving this (and sdk)
> > > builds and instructions since is what lots of people said us few weeks
> > ago
> > > when we proposed a 1.0 and folks say that we should first concentrate
> in
> > > make the technology accesible, documented and easy to start with. We
> need
> > > to go over and over and over until we get it. I think is the only way
> so
> > > people coming could finaly say "trying royale was a breeze for me" :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 10:03, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>) escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hey Guys,
> > > >
> > > > Everything depends on what kind of user some of you wanted to get. I
> > see
> > > > that there is and attempt in this thread of getting Developers who
> > would
> > > > like to work on framework - however maybe it is easier to attract non
> > > > framework developers, people who wanted to use Royale, build
> > application
> > > > without touching framework code.
> > > >
> > > > I think additionally that building such a big framework will always
> > have
> > > > some difficult instructions and quite often manual steps to perform.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > pt., 24 maj 2019 o 09:55 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > > > napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > just a point to add about my initial setup. I assume the config
> for a
> > > > > newbie is based on the wiki, so he has the environment vars setup
> > (is a
> > > > > requerimient for now), but he doesn't have maven repository filled
> > > since
> > > > he
> > > > > never tried to build.
> > > > >
> > > > > But one thing is clear, all process is very complex and filled with
> > > many
> > > > > points that is our main problem to get traction. People coming is
> > > unable
> > > > to
> > > > > enter Royale world unless is perseverant and recover from various
> > > failed
> > > > > tries.
> > > > > Hope it would be some way to simplify all this to a minimum. Maybe
> > the
> > > > only
> > > > > JS option, that will be hopefully what 90% of users would want from
> > > use,
> > > > > could a super easy process, simple and with very few internal
> process
> > > > that
> > > > > ensures folks can succeed in 99% of cases. In the other hand, if
> they
> > > > want
> > > > > SWF stuff, then we have all the complexity with flash player,
> > debugger,
> > > > and
> > > > > other adobe stuff that is an additional set of things with other
> > > > > requerimients
> > > > >
> > > > > About videos, is ok for me to do both. The objective is to do 2-3
> min
> > > > > videos that will make a difference. Ultra short videos with just
> > > straight
> > > > > to the core info are proven very useful, so we need something in
> that
> > > way
> > > > > if we want people to join Royale.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 4:40, Alex Harui
> > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > >)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't
> > > remember
> > > > > > exactly, but I think it is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
> > > > > > FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The
> > > > > > rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the
> Adobe
> > > > stuff
> > > > > or
> > > > > > they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and
> > > > Carlos
> > > > > > are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's
> > configuration
> > > as
> > > > > we
> > > > > > wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while
> > you
> > > > and
> > > > > > Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > requirement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to
> > look,
> > > > > > hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind
> this
> > > > stuff
> > > > > > and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release
> > > > > automation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run
> > without
> > > > > > Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built,
> then
> > > > > > SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is
> > > > compared
> > > > > > against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I
> don't
> > > > > > remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no
> > point
> > > in
> > > > > > running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no
> > > Adobe
> > > > > > artifacts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or
> don't
> > > > > define
> > > > > > any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to
> spend
> > > the
> > > > > time
> > > > > > getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main
> > > > scenarios
> > > > > > are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You
> > > don't
> > > > > > have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want
> > SWF
> > > > > > artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I
> > > don't
> > > > > > know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in
> running
> > > them
> > > > > if
> > > > > > there are no SWF artifacts.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
> > > > > > (short version) My failing combination is a)
> > FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER
> > > > is
> > > > > > defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local
> m2
> > > > does
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > contain playerglobal swc
> > > > > > But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles
> > or
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Details)
> > > > > > I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I
> > probably
> > > > read
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > that at one point and have used them, but will go back to
> > refresh
> > > > my
> > > > > > knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
> > > > > > I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal
> > > > method
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not
> compiler-jx),
> > > this
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and
> assuming
> > > the
> > > > > > debug
> > > > > > player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g.
> > error
> > > > > > dialogs
> > > > > > like TypeError: Error #2023: Class
> > > ASDateTests1933741105634631672$
> > > > > must
> > > > > > inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do
> > see
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > a little confusing (to me).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is
> not,
> > > it
> > > > > > bails
> > > > > > and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
> > > > > > But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the
> > > > > > playerglobal
> > > > > > swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
> > > > > > if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > swc
> > > > > > in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I
> think
> > > it
> > > > > > finds it
> > > > > > after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things
> > > > continue
> > > > > to
> > > > > > work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the
> tests
> > > > phase
> > > > > > passes and the build continues on to completion.
> > > > > > So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is
> defined
> > > and
> > > > > b)
> > > > > > PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not
> > contain
> > > > > > playerglobal swc
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui
> > > > <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand
> you
> > > are
> > > > > > trying to
> > > > > > > help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with
> > both
> > > > > > generating
> > > > > > > SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you
> > haven't
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > helped everyone, just those who want the same set of
> > artifacts
> > > > you
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > expecting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe
> artifact
> > > > > without
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > a profile to include it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts
> > and
> > > > one
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in
> running
> > > > them
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > there are no SWF artifacts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my
> > > > motivation
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a
> > short
> > > > > > video to
> > > > > > > post
> > > > > > > on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something
> > > many,
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > requested. And something I think will give us more
> users
> > > and
> > > > > > exposure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was working without problem each day. I tried to
> remove
> > > > > > repository
> > > > > > > folder
> > > > > > > to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was
> > > > > working.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > result
> > > > > > > was it was failing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a
> > profile
> > > > > > added in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch.
> > > Other's
> > > > > can
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > to proof is a solution for anyone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago
> > he'd
> > > > > found
> > > > > > royale
> > > > > > > didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here,
> and
> > > will
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > stuck.
> > > > > > > Now, hopefully he will get it working.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't
> > > agree
> > > > > is
> > > > > > put
> > > > > > > skipTests to false as an official way to make maven
> build
> > > > work
> > > > > > > officially,
> > > > > > > since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must
> opt-out,
> > > > with
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > profile o
> > > > > > > via command line, but official build should work with
> > > normal
> > > > > > tests in a
> > > > > > > first execution).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > About having a repository or not: This should not
> matter,
> > > but
> > > > > > the fact
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > it currently does, independently of what any of us
> want.
> > I,
> > > > as
> > > > > > you,
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > want the simplest way to build, that could be always
> the
> > > > same,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > a difference in a first maven build of royale against
> the
> > > > > > subsequent
> > > > > > > builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s
> > settings...
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what
> we
> > > > have
> > > > > > now. So
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > important to test against an empty repository folder,
> > > unless
> > > > we
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > build process and get it more simpler, what I don't
> > expect
> > > to
> > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate
> > > right
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we all understand the goals, and that we have
> two
> > > > sets
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > outputs.
> > > > > > > Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If
> there's
> > > > other
> > > > > > one you
> > > > > > > know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or
> > > directly
> > > > > > modify
> > > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > page that is the official one. If you can do the
> second,
> > it
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > > great
> > > > > > > since it will be more accurate to what you have in
> mind.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as
> > > > > something
> > > > > > to do
> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > concrete case, since right now (at the time we are
> > writing
> > > > > > this), as
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in
> > > > > building
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in
> > > > > develop,
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes
> > you
> > > > will
> > > > > > > introduce
> > > > > > > in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here
> > and
> > > > test
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > againts
> > > > > > > an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the
> > > process
> > > > > > and the
> > > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > if needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > About the planned video, since is a time consuming work
> > > maybe
> > > > > > better to
> > > > > > > postpone until your work is merged so I can create one
> > that
> > > > > > doesn't get
> > > > > > > obsolete in few days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's ok for you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> > > > > > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > > > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> > > > > > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > > > > > >)
> > > > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I
> may
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > able to
> > > > > > > > respond
> > > > > > > > > fully to this thread today as there seems to
> be a
> > > lot
> > > > > to
> > > > > > catch
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > on, but
> > > > > > > > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven
> > > build.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) There are some helper jars
> > (compiler-build-tools
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the
> > > "utils"
> > > > > > > profile. They
> > > > > > > > > haven't changed in develop, but they will
> change
> > in
> > > > > > 0.9.6.
> > > > > > > They've
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > changed in the release_practice branch. So
> folks
> > > > will
> > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change
> those
> > > > jars.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile
> is
> > > > needed
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to
> > try
> > > to
> > > > > > simplify
> > > > > > > > instructions and process to minumun needs to
> avoid
> > > new
> > > > > > comers
> > > > > > > > confusion.
> > > > > > > > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case
> to
> > > > > > execute when
> > > > > > > > needed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you
> > > will
> > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > use the
> > > > > > > > utils profile to build from scratch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official
> > > > > > playerglobal on
> > > > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the
> Mavenizer
> > to
> > > > > > address
> > > > > > > licensing
> > > > > > > > > acceptance issues.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For what we discussed in the thread, seems
> > > playerglobal
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > already on
> > > > > > > > maven
> > > > > > > > official repos, so my guest is we are served with
> > > that
> > > > > and
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > adobe
> > > > > > > > host it in a maven repo.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Adobe has not given permission to distribute
> > playerglobal
> > > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > way so
> > > > > > > > we cannot use it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow
> > the
> > > > > Maven
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard
> > > requirements
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > playerglobal will
> > > > > > > > > defeat this capability unless those
> dependencies
> > > are
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > > > Maven profile.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Right now we need to do this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > > > > > > -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > > > > > > > so this means something is not working ok in a
> > clean
> > > > > > environment
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > build/install?
> > > > > > > > For now, the current instructions works, but if
> > > that's
> > > > > the
> > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > try to fix this in the future, although seems
> this
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > urgent
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > people is capable of build Royale in the current
> > way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds,
> > is
> > > to
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building
> > SWF
> > > > > > versions is
> > > > > > > > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these
> > > > > changes,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > solutions should consider that there are two
> different
> > > sets
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > output.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and
> > > apachroyalecibuild)
> > > > > are
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > reference
> > > > > > > > > examples of Maven building things correctly on
> > > > Windows.
> > > > > > You
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was building without problem and still can
> build
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > problem. My
> > > > > > > > concern was for the case people tries to build
> > maven
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > and was where I found problems. This problems are
> > as
> > > > well
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > reproduced in
> > > > > > > > machines that are already working, since they
> pass
> > > the
> > > > > > initial
> > > > > > > setup.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 5) There might be some assumption that
> airglobal
> > > > and/or
> > > > > > > playerglobal
> > > > > > > > exist
> > > > > > > > > to determine whether the build is going to try
> to
> > > > > output
> > > > > > SWF
> > > > > > > > versions of
> > > > > > > > > the artifacts or not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require
> > > > > > airglobal/playerglobal
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > build a
> > > > > > > > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is
> > done
> > > in
> > > > > > the Ant
> > > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=tv9uPSXTrChT%2FGaw%2F2XtrpFcxJ46vDyzjH7jfYz6piU%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > > > > is describing whole process without
> > differentiation.
> > > > > > > > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in
> > the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > hand
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > JS?
> > > > > > > > I think the actual page description us for
> SWF/JS,
> > > and
> > > > I
> > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be
> > > very
> > > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > many people will really only build for JS, and if
> > > > > sometime
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > future we
> > > > > > > > have other interesting target like WebAsembly,
> will
> > > > want
> > > > > > to add
> > > > > > > it and
> > > > > > > > build JS/WEBASM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated
> with
> > > > these
> > > > > > > changes to
> > > > > > > > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating,
> > but
> > > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be best
> > > > > > > > to first make it clear that there are two sets of
> > output.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the
> ideas
> > > I've
> > > > > > read
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > skimming
> > > > > > > > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think you have to have in mind that we all was
> > > > working
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > > with our
> > > > > > > > current environment and that the problem comes
> from
> > > try
> > > > > to
> > > > > > start
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are
> > simpler
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > shorter
> > > > > > > > instructions.
> > > > > > > > You should try to rename your "repository" folder
> > and
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > new one
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > try to build with maven to see what you find and
> if
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > > findings.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be
> today.
> > > It
> > > > > > is, IMO,
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > important for others to understand the goals and how
> > this
> > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > works so it
> > > > > > > > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I
> am
> > > not
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > expert, is
> > > > > > > > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t
> matter.
> > > > > Maven
> > > > > > goes
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml.
> The
> > > only
> > > > > > "trick"
> > > > > > > is how
> > > > > > > > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only
> thing
> > > that
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > fetch
> > > > > > > > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the
> > > repository
> > > > > > > "shouldn't"
> > > > > > > > make a difference and someone should figure out why,
> > but
> > > > only
> > > > > > after
> > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the
> > SWC
> > > > > POMs
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF
> > artifacts.
> > > > > That
> > > > > > > might be
> > > > > > > > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > compiler
> > > > > > > if not
> > > > > > > > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The key point is that you can't just "get it working
> > for
> > > > > > you". We
> > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=3lU8ntUGoybH%2BtfvVQNOtDS6NLDn4HIwaj75I82dQqM%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > > >
> > > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Ok Piotr,
so talking now only about "SDK user" case you think new users coming like
Adrian or others are currently ok and are successful using (I suppose) the
latest nightly build? If that's true is a success for Royale without doubt.
thanks
El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 10:31, Piotr Zarzycki (<
piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>) escribió:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Good example of user was Adrian who have started look into the Royale. He
> wasn't even thinking about going into the frameworks code, so his first
> attempt was - how to use it and build multiplatform application? Not how to
> build framework and fix it? - cause if you coming to technology and have to
> fix it in the first place to be able to work with - what kind of impression
> do you have about it ?
>
> I believe only fraction of users whether they will be ActionScript or non
> AS developers would go deeper into framework - And even if they are I
> expect those will be people who definitely won't be afraid made some custom
> setup to get to the point.
>
> Above conclusions were coming not from Adrian's case only, believe me :)
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> pt., 24 maj 2019 o 10:14 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > yes you'r right. But we want both, users and developers.
> > Right now users are covered with SDK nightly builds, and we just need to
> > get official SDKs generated easily (hopefully thanks to the current Alex
> > effort) in short period of time (maybe monthly?)
> > The other option is what we're covering here as you stated: developers.
> The
> > problem was that a dev that wants to join us and use maven was not able
> to
> > do that some days ago, and we need to continue improving this (and sdk)
> > builds and instructions since is what lots of people said us few weeks
> ago
> > when we proposed a 1.0 and folks say that we should first concentrate in
> > make the technology accesible, documented and easy to start with. We need
> > to go over and over and over until we get it. I think is the only way so
> > people coming could finaly say "trying royale was a breeze for me" :)
> >
> >
> >
> > El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 10:03, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>) escribió:
> >
> > > Hey Guys,
> > >
> > > Everything depends on what kind of user some of you wanted to get. I
> see
> > > that there is and attempt in this thread of getting Developers who
> would
> > > like to work on framework - however maybe it is easier to attract non
> > > framework developers, people who wanted to use Royale, build
> application
> > > without touching framework code.
> > >
> > > I think additionally that building such a big framework will always
> have
> > > some difficult instructions and quite often manual steps to perform.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > pt., 24 maj 2019 o 09:55 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > just a point to add about my initial setup. I assume the config for a
> > > > newbie is based on the wiki, so he has the environment vars setup
> (is a
> > > > requerimient for now), but he doesn't have maven repository filled
> > since
> > > he
> > > > never tried to build.
> > > >
> > > > But one thing is clear, all process is very complex and filled with
> > many
> > > > points that is our main problem to get traction. People coming is
> > unable
> > > to
> > > > enter Royale world unless is perseverant and recover from various
> > failed
> > > > tries.
> > > > Hope it would be some way to simplify all this to a minimum. Maybe
> the
> > > only
> > > > JS option, that will be hopefully what 90% of users would want from
> > use,
> > > > could a super easy process, simple and with very few internal process
> > > that
> > > > ensures folks can succeed in 99% of cases. In the other hand, if they
> > > want
> > > > SWF stuff, then we have all the complexity with flash player,
> debugger,
> > > and
> > > > other adobe stuff that is an additional set of things with other
> > > > requerimients
> > > >
> > > > About videos, is ok for me to do both. The objective is to do 2-3 min
> > > > videos that will make a difference. Ultra short videos with just
> > straight
> > > > to the core info are proven very useful, so we need something in that
> > way
> > > > if we want people to join Royale.
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 4:40, Alex Harui
> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > >)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't
> > remember
> > > > > exactly, but I think it is:
> > > > >
> > > > > Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
> > > > > FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The
> > > > > rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the Adobe
> > > stuff
> > > > or
> > > > > they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and
> > > Carlos
> > > > > are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's
> configuration
> > as
> > > > we
> > > > > wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while
> you
> > > and
> > > > > Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to
> be
> > > the
> > > > > requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to
> look,
> > > > > hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind this
> > > stuff
> > > > > and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release
> > > > automation.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run
> without
> > > > > Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built, then
> > > > > SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is
> > > compared
> > > > > against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I don't
> > > > > remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no
> point
> > in
> > > > > running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no
> > Adobe
> > > > > artifacts.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or don't
> > > > define
> > > > > any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to spend
> > the
> > > > time
> > > > > getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main
> > > scenarios
> > > > > are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You
> > don't
> > > > > have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want
> SWF
> > > > > artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I
> > don't
> > > > > know.
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running
> > them
> > > > if
> > > > > there are no SWF artifacts.'
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
> > > > > (short version) My failing combination is a)
> FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER
> > > is
> > > > > defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2
> > > does
> > > > > not
> > > > > contain playerglobal swc
> > > > > But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles
> or
> > > > > anything
> > > > > specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
> > > > >
> > > > > (Details)
> > > > > I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I
> probably
> > > read
> > > > > about
> > > > > that at one point and have used them, but will go back to
> refresh
> > > my
> > > > > knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
> > > > > I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal
> > > method
> > > > > which
> > > > > looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx),
> > this
> > > > > still
> > > > > tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming
> > the
> > > > > debug
> > > > > player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g.
> error
> > > > > dialogs
> > > > > like TypeError: Error #2023: Class
> > ASDateTests1933741105634631672$
> > > > must
> > > > > inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
> > > > >
> > > > > When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do
> see
> > > > > something
> > > > > a little confusing (to me).
> > > > >
> > > > > It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not,
> > it
> > > > > bails
> > > > > and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
> > > > > But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the
> > > > > playerglobal
> > > > > swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
> > > > > if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks
> for
> > > the
> > > > > swc
> > > > > in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think
> > it
> > > > > finds it
> > > > > after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things
> > > continue
> > > > to
> > > > > work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests
> > > phase
> > > > > passes and the build continues on to completion.
> > > > > So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined
> > and
> > > > b)
> > > > > PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not
> contain
> > > > > playerglobal swc
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui
> > > <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you
> > are
> > > > > trying to
> > > > > > help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with
> both
> > > > > generating
> > > > > > SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you
> haven't
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > helped everyone, just those who want the same set of
> artifacts
> > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > expecting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact
> > > > without
> > > > > using
> > > > > > a profile to include it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts
> and
> > > one
> > > > > for
> > > > > > not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running
> > > them
> > > > if
> > > > > > there are no SWF artifacts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my
> > > motivation
> > > > > was
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a
> short
> > > > > video to
> > > > > > post
> > > > > > on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something
> > many,
> > > > > many
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > requested. And something I think will give us more users
> > and
> > > > > exposure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove
> > > > > repository
> > > > > > folder
> > > > > > to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was
> > > > working.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > result
> > > > > > was it was failing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a
> profile
> > > > > added in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch.
> > Other's
> > > > can
> > > > > try
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > to proof is a solution for anyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago
> he'd
> > > > found
> > > > > royale
> > > > > > didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and
> > will
> > > > get
> > > > > > stuck.
> > > > > > Now, hopefully he will get it working.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't
> > agree
> > > > is
> > > > > put
> > > > > > skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build
> > > work
> > > > > > officially,
> > > > > > since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out,
> > > with
> > > > a
> > > > > > profile o
> > > > > > via command line, but official build should work with
> > normal
> > > > > tests in a
> > > > > > first execution).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About having a repository or not: This should not matter,
> > but
> > > > > the fact
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > it currently does, independently of what any of us want.
> I,
> > > as
> > > > > you,
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > want the simplest way to build, that could be always the
> > > same,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > a difference in a first maven build of royale against the
> > > > > subsequent
> > > > > > builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s
> settings...
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we
> > > have
> > > > > now. So
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > important to test against an empty repository folder,
> > unless
> > > we
> > > > > change
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > build process and get it more simpler, what I don't
> expect
> > to
> > > > > happen
> > > > > > anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate
> > right
> > > > > now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two
> > > sets
> > > > of
> > > > > > outputs.
> > > > > > Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's
> > > other
> > > > > one you
> > > > > > know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or
> > directly
> > > > > modify
> > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > page that is the official one. If you can do the second,
> it
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> > > > > > 2
> > > > > > a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as
> > > > something
> > > > > to do
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > concrete case, since right now (at the time we are
> writing
> > > > > this), as
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in
> > > > building
> > > > > from
> > > > > > scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in
> > > > develop,
> > > > > you
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes
> you
> > > will
> > > > > > introduce
> > > > > > in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here
> and
> > > test
> > > > > it
> > > > > > againts
> > > > > > an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the
> > process
> > > > > and the
> > > > > > wiki
> > > > > > if needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > About the planned video, since is a time consuming work
> > maybe
> > > > > better to
> > > > > > postpone until your work is merged so I can create one
> that
> > > > > doesn't get
> > > > > > obsolete in few days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's ok for you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> > > > > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> > > > > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > > > > >)
> > > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > able to
> > > > > > > respond
> > > > > > > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a
> > lot
> > > > to
> > > > > catch
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > on, but
> > > > > > > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven
> > build.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) There are some helper jars
> (compiler-build-tools
> > > and
> > > > > > > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the
> > "utils"
> > > > > > profile. They
> > > > > > > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change
> in
> > > > > 0.9.6.
> > > > > > They've
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks
> > > will
> > > > > need to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those
> > > jars.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is
> > > needed
> > > > > for
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to
> try
> > to
> > > > > simplify
> > > > > > > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid
> > new
> > > > > comers
> > > > > > > confusion.
> > > > > > > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to
> > > > > execute when
> > > > > > > needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you
> > will
> > > > > need to
> > > > > > use the
> > > > > > > utils profile to build from scratch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official
> > > > > playerglobal on
> > > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer
> to
> > > > > address
> > > > > > licensing
> > > > > > > > acceptance issues.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For what we discussed in the thread, seems
> > playerglobal
> > > > is
> > > > > > already on
> > > > > > > maven
> > > > > > > official repos, so my guest is we are served with
> > that
> > > > and
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > adobe
> > > > > > > host it in a maven repo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Adobe has not given permission to distribute
> playerglobal
> > > in
> > > > > this
> > > > > > way so
> > > > > > > we cannot use it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow
> the
> > > > Maven
> > > > > build
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and
> > > > probably
> > > > > > > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard
> > requirements
> > > > to
> > > > > > > playerglobal will
> > > > > > > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies
> > are
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > > Maven profile.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right now we need to do this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > > > > > -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > > > > > > so this means something is not working ok in a
> clean
> > > > > environment
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > build/install?
> > > > > > > For now, the current instructions works, but if
> > that's
> > > > the
> > > > > case,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > try to fix this in the future, although seems this
> is
> > > not
> > > > > urgent
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > > people is capable of build Royale in the current
> way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds,
> is
> > to
> > > > not
> > > > > > require
> > > > > > > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building
> SWF
> > > > > versions is
> > > > > > > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these
> > > > changes,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > solutions should consider that there are two different
> > sets
> > > > of
> > > > > > output.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and
> > apachroyalecibuild)
> > > > are
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > reference
> > > > > > > > examples of Maven building things correctly on
> > > Windows.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was building without problem and still can build
> > > > without
> > > > > > problem. My
> > > > > > > concern was for the case people tries to build
> maven
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > and was where I found problems. This problems are
> as
> > > well
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > reproduced in
> > > > > > > machines that are already working, since they pass
> > the
> > > > > initial
> > > > > > setup.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal
> > > and/or
> > > > > > playerglobal
> > > > > > > exist
> > > > > > > > to determine whether the build is going to try to
> > > > output
> > > > > SWF
> > > > > > > versions of
> > > > > > > > the artifacts or not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require
> > > > > airglobal/playerglobal
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > build a
> > > > > > > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is
> done
> > in
> > > > > the Ant
> > > > > > builds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=tv9uPSXTrChT%2FGaw%2F2XtrpFcxJ46vDyzjH7jfYz6piU%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > > > is describing whole process without
> differentiation.
> > > > > > > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in
> the
> > > > other
> > > > > hand
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > JS?
> > > > > > > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS,
> > and
> > > I
> > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be
> > very
> > > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > many people will really only build for JS, and if
> > > > sometime
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > > future we
> > > > > > > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will
> > > want
> > > > > to add
> > > > > > it and
> > > > > > > build JS/WEBASM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with
> > > these
> > > > > > changes to
> > > > > > > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating,
> but
> > > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be best
> > > > > > > to first make it clear that there are two sets of
> output.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas
> > I've
> > > > > read
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > > skimming
> > > > > > > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think you have to have in mind that we all was
> > > working
> > > > > right
> > > > > > with our
> > > > > > > current environment and that the problem comes from
> > try
> > > > to
> > > > > start
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are
> simpler
> > > > since
> > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > shorter
> > > > > > > instructions.
> > > > > > > You should try to rename your "repository" folder
> and
> > > > > create a
> > > > > > new one
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > try to build with maven to see what you find and if
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > findings.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today.
> > It
> > > > > is, IMO,
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > important for others to understand the goals and how
> this
> > > > stuff
> > > > > > works so it
> > > > > > > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am
> > not
> > > > an
> > > > > > expert, is
> > > > > > > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter.
> > > > Maven
> > > > > goes
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The
> > only
> > > > > "trick"
> > > > > > is how
> > > > > > > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing
> > that
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > fetch
> > > > > > > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the
> > repository
> > > > > > "shouldn't"
> > > > > > > make a difference and someone should figure out why,
> but
> > > only
> > > > > after
> > > > > > making
> > > > > > > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the
> SWC
> > > > POMs
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF
> artifacts.
> > > > That
> > > > > > might be
> > > > > > > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in
> > the
> > > > > compiler
> > > > > > if not
> > > > > > > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The key point is that you can't just "get it working
> for
> > > > > you". We
> > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=3lU8ntUGoybH%2BtfvVQNOtDS6NLDn4HIwaj75I82dQqM%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carlos,
Good example of user was Adrian who have started look into the Royale. He
wasn't even thinking about going into the frameworks code, so his first
attempt was - how to use it and build multiplatform application? Not how to
build framework and fix it? - cause if you coming to technology and have to
fix it in the first place to be able to work with - what kind of impression
do you have about it ?
I believe only fraction of users whether they will be ActionScript or non
AS developers would go deeper into framework - And even if they are I
expect those will be people who definitely won't be afraid made some custom
setup to get to the point.
Above conclusions were coming not from Adrian's case only, believe me :)
Thanks,
Piotr
pt., 24 maj 2019 o 10:14 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> napisał(a):
> Hi Piotr,
>
> yes you'r right. But we want both, users and developers.
> Right now users are covered with SDK nightly builds, and we just need to
> get official SDKs generated easily (hopefully thanks to the current Alex
> effort) in short period of time (maybe monthly?)
> The other option is what we're covering here as you stated: developers. The
> problem was that a dev that wants to join us and use maven was not able to
> do that some days ago, and we need to continue improving this (and sdk)
> builds and instructions since is what lots of people said us few weeks ago
> when we proposed a 1.0 and folks say that we should first concentrate in
> make the technology accesible, documented and easy to start with. We need
> to go over and over and over until we get it. I think is the only way so
> people coming could finaly say "trying royale was a breeze for me" :)
>
>
>
> El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 10:03, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > Everything depends on what kind of user some of you wanted to get. I see
> > that there is and attempt in this thread of getting Developers who would
> > like to work on framework - however maybe it is easier to attract non
> > framework developers, people who wanted to use Royale, build application
> > without touching framework code.
> >
> > I think additionally that building such a big framework will always have
> > some difficult instructions and quite often manual steps to perform.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > pt., 24 maj 2019 o 09:55 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > just a point to add about my initial setup. I assume the config for a
> > > newbie is based on the wiki, so he has the environment vars setup (is a
> > > requerimient for now), but he doesn't have maven repository filled
> since
> > he
> > > never tried to build.
> > >
> > > But one thing is clear, all process is very complex and filled with
> many
> > > points that is our main problem to get traction. People coming is
> unable
> > to
> > > enter Royale world unless is perseverant and recover from various
> failed
> > > tries.
> > > Hope it would be some way to simplify all this to a minimum. Maybe the
> > only
> > > JS option, that will be hopefully what 90% of users would want from
> use,
> > > could a super easy process, simple and with very few internal process
> > that
> > > ensures folks can succeed in 99% of cases. In the other hand, if they
> > want
> > > SWF stuff, then we have all the complexity with flash player, debugger,
> > and
> > > other adobe stuff that is an additional set of things with other
> > > requerimients
> > >
> > > About videos, is ok for me to do both. The objective is to do 2-3 min
> > > videos that will make a difference. Ultra short videos with just
> straight
> > > to the core info are proven very useful, so we need something in that
> way
> > > if we want people to join Royale.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 4:40, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't
> remember
> > > > exactly, but I think it is:
> > > >
> > > > Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
> > > > FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
> > > >
> > > > Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The
> > > > rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the Adobe
> > stuff
> > > or
> > > > they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and
> > Carlos
> > > > are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's configuration
> as
> > > we
> > > > wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while you
> > and
> > > > Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to be
> > the
> > > > requirement.
> > > >
> > > > The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to look,
> > > > hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind this
> > stuff
> > > > and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release
> > > automation.
> > > >
> > > > In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run without
> > > > Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built, then
> > > > SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is
> > compared
> > > > against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I don't
> > > > remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no point
> in
> > > > running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no
> Adobe
> > > > artifacts.
> > > >
> > > > So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or don't
> > > define
> > > > any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to spend
> the
> > > time
> > > > getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main
> > scenarios
> > > > are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You
> don't
> > > > have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want SWF
> > > > artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I
> don't
> > > > know.
> > > >
> > > > HTH,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running
> them
> > > if
> > > > there are no SWF artifacts.'
> > > >
> > > > This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
> > > > (short version) My failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER
> > is
> > > > defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > contain playerglobal swc
> > > > But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles or
> > > > anything
> > > > specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
> > > >
> > > > (Details)
> > > > I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I probably
> > read
> > > > about
> > > > that at one point and have used them, but will go back to refresh
> > my
> > > > knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
> > > > I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal
> > method
> > > > which
> > > > looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx),
> this
> > > > still
> > > > tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming
> the
> > > > debug
> > > > player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g. error
> > > > dialogs
> > > > like TypeError: Error #2023: Class
> ASDateTests1933741105634631672$
> > > must
> > > > inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
> > > >
> > > > When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do see
> > > > something
> > > > a little confusing (to me).
> > > >
> > > > It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not,
> it
> > > > bails
> > > > and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
> > > > But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the
> > > > playerglobal
> > > > swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
> > > > if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks for
> > the
> > > > swc
> > > > in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think
> it
> > > > finds it
> > > > after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things
> > continue
> > > to
> > > > work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
> > > >
> > > > However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests
> > phase
> > > > passes and the build continues on to completion.
> > > > So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined
> and
> > > b)
> > > > PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not contain
> > > > playerglobal swc
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui
> > <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you
> are
> > > > trying to
> > > > > help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both
> > > > generating
> > > > > SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't
> > > > actually
> > > > > helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts
> > you
> > > > are
> > > > > expecting.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact
> > > without
> > > > using
> > > > > a profile to include it.
> > > > >
> > > > > You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and
> > one
> > > > for
> > > > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running
> > them
> > > if
> > > > > there are no SWF artifacts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrovira@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my
> > motivation
> > > > was
> > > > > exactly
> > > > > the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short
> > > > video to
> > > > > post
> > > > > on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something
> many,
> > > > many
> > > > > people
> > > > > requested. And something I think will give us more users
> and
> > > > exposure.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove
> > > > repository
> > > > > folder
> > > > > to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was
> > > working.
> > > > The
> > > > > result
> > > > > was it was failing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile
> > > > added in
> > > > > the
> > > > > wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch.
> Other's
> > > can
> > > > try
> > > > > this
> > > > > to proof is a solution for anyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd
> > > found
> > > > royale
> > > > > didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and
> will
> > > get
> > > > > stuck.
> > > > > Now, hopefully he will get it working.
> > > > >
> > > > > For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't
> agree
> > > is
> > > > put
> > > > > skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build
> > work
> > > > > officially,
> > > > > since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out,
> > with
> > > a
> > > > > profile o
> > > > > via command line, but official build should work with
> normal
> > > > tests in a
> > > > > first execution).
> > > > >
> > > > > About having a repository or not: This should not matter,
> but
> > > > the fact
> > > > > is
> > > > > it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I,
> > as
> > > > you,
> > > > > would
> > > > > want the simplest way to build, that could be always the
> > same,
> > > > but
> > > > > there's
> > > > > a difference in a first maven build of royale against the
> > > > subsequent
> > > > > builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings...
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we
> > have
> > > > now. So
> > > > > is
> > > > > important to test against an empty repository folder,
> unless
> > we
> > > > change
> > > > > the
> > > > > build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect
> to
> > > > happen
> > > > > anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate
> right
> > > > now.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two
> > sets
> > > of
> > > > > outputs.
> > > > > Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's
> > other
> > > > one you
> > > > > know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or
> directly
> > > > modify
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it
> > > > would be
> > > > > great
> > > > > since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> > > > > 2
> > > > > a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as
> > > something
> > > > to do
> > > > > in a
> > > > > concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing
> > > > this), as
> > > > > you
> > > > > posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in
> > > building
> > > > from
> > > > > scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
> > > > >
> > > > > b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in
> > > develop,
> > > > you
> > > > > should
> > > > > change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you
> > will
> > > > > introduce
> > > > > in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and
> > test
> > > > it
> > > > > againts
> > > > > an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the
> process
> > > > and the
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > if needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > About the planned video, since is a time consuming work
> maybe
> > > > better to
> > > > > postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that
> > > > doesn't get
> > > > > obsolete in few days.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's ok for you?
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> > > > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> > > > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > > > >)
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may
> not
> > be
> > > > able to
> > > > > > respond
> > > > > > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a
> lot
> > > to
> > > > catch
> > > > > up
> > > > > > on, but
> > > > > > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven
> build.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools
> > and
> > > > > > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the
> "utils"
> > > > > profile. They
> > > > > > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in
> > > > 0.9.6.
> > > > > They've
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks
> > will
> > > > need to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those
> > jars.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is
> > needed
> > > > for
> > > > > that
> > > > > > case,
> > > > > > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try
> to
> > > > simplify
> > > > > > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid
> new
> > > > comers
> > > > > > confusion.
> > > > > > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to
> > > > execute when
> > > > > > needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you
> will
> > > > need to
> > > > > use the
> > > > > > utils profile to build from scratch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official
> > > > playerglobal on
> > > > > Maven.
> > > > > > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to
> > > > address
> > > > > licensing
> > > > > > > acceptance issues.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For what we discussed in the thread, seems
> playerglobal
> > > is
> > > > > already on
> > > > > > maven
> > > > > > official repos, so my guest is we are served with
> that
> > > and
> > > > don't
> > > > > need
> > > > > > adobe
> > > > > > host it in a maven repo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > way so
> > > > > > we cannot use it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the
> > > Maven
> > > > build
> > > > > to
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and
> > > probably
> > > > > > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard
> requirements
> > > to
> > > > > > playerglobal will
> > > > > > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies
> are
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > Maven profile.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now we need to do this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > > > > -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > > > > > so this means something is not working ok in a clean
> > > > environment
> > > > > for
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > build/install?
> > > > > > For now, the current instructions works, but if
> that's
> > > the
> > > > case,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > try to fix this in the future, although seems this is
> > not
> > > > urgent
> > > > > while
> > > > > > people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is
> to
> > > not
> > > > > require
> > > > > > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF
> > > > versions is
> > > > > > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these
> > > changes,
> > > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > > solutions should consider that there are two different
> sets
> > > of
> > > > > output.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and
> apachroyalecibuild)
> > > are
> > > > good
> > > > > > reference
> > > > > > > examples of Maven building things correctly on
> > Windows.
> > > > You
> > > > > can
> > > > > > compare
> > > > > > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was building without problem and still can build
> > > without
> > > > > problem. My
> > > > > > concern was for the case people tries to build maven
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > time,
> > > > > > and was where I found problems. This problems are as
> > well
> > > > not
> > > > > > reproduced in
> > > > > > machines that are already working, since they pass
> the
> > > > initial
> > > > > setup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal
> > and/or
> > > > > playerglobal
> > > > > > exist
> > > > > > > to determine whether the build is going to try to
> > > output
> > > > SWF
> > > > > > versions of
> > > > > > > the artifacts or not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require
> > > > airglobal/playerglobal
> > > > > and
> > > > > > build a
> > > > > > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done
> in
> > > > the Ant
> > > > > builds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=tv9uPSXTrChT%2FGaw%2F2XtrpFcxJ46vDyzjH7jfYz6piU%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > > is describing whole process without differentiation.
> > > > > > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the
> > > other
> > > > hand
> > > > > only
> > > > > > JS?
> > > > > > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS,
> and
> > I
> > > > > personally
> > > > > > never
> > > > > > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be
> very
> > > > > interesting
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > many people will really only build for JS, and if
> > > sometime
> > > > in the
> > > > > > future we
> > > > > > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will
> > want
> > > > to add
> > > > > it and
> > > > > > build JS/WEBASM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with
> > these
> > > > > changes to
> > > > > > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but
> > it
> > > > would
> > > > > be best
> > > > > > to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas
> I've
> > > > read
> > > > > while
> > > > > > skimming
> > > > > > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think you have to have in mind that we all was
> > working
> > > > right
> > > > > with our
> > > > > > current environment and that the problem comes from
> try
> > > to
> > > > start
> > > > > from
> > > > > > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler
> > > since
> > > > > requires
> > > > > > shorter
> > > > > > instructions.
> > > > > > You should try to rename your "repository" folder and
> > > > create a
> > > > > new one
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > try to build with maven to see what you find and if
> we
> > > can
> > > > > improve
> > > > > > actual
> > > > > > findings.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today.
> It
> > > > is, IMO,
> > > > > more
> > > > > > important for others to understand the goals and how this
> > > stuff
> > > > > works so it
> > > > > > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am
> not
> > > an
> > > > > expert, is
> > > > > > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter.
> > > Maven
> > > > goes
> > > > > and
> > > > > > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The
> only
> > > > "trick"
> > > > > is how
> > > > > > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing
> that
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > fetch
> > > > > > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the
> repository
> > > > > "shouldn't"
> > > > > > make a difference and someone should figure out why, but
> > only
> > > > after
> > > > > making
> > > > > > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC
> > > POMs
> > > > in
> > > > > > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts.
> > > That
> > > > > might be
> > > > > > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in
> the
> > > > compiler
> > > > > if not
> > > > > > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The key point is that you can't just "get it working for
> > > > you". We
> > > > > have to
> > > > > > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HTH,
> > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=3lU8ntUGoybH%2BtfvVQNOtDS6NLDn4HIwaj75I82dQqM%3D&reserved=0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Piotr,
yes you'r right. But we want both, users and developers.
Right now users are covered with SDK nightly builds, and we just need to
get official SDKs generated easily (hopefully thanks to the current Alex
effort) in short period of time (maybe monthly?)
The other option is what we're covering here as you stated: developers. The
problem was that a dev that wants to join us and use maven was not able to
do that some days ago, and we need to continue improving this (and sdk)
builds and instructions since is what lots of people said us few weeks ago
when we proposed a 1.0 and folks say that we should first concentrate in
make the technology accesible, documented and easy to start with. We need
to go over and over and over until we get it. I think is the only way so
people coming could finaly say "trying royale was a breeze for me" :)
El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 10:03, Piotr Zarzycki (<
piotrzarzycki21@gmail.com>) escribió:
> Hey Guys,
>
> Everything depends on what kind of user some of you wanted to get. I see
> that there is and attempt in this thread of getting Developers who would
> like to work on framework - however maybe it is easier to attract non
> framework developers, people who wanted to use Royale, build application
> without touching framework code.
>
> I think additionally that building such a big framework will always have
> some difficult instructions and quite often manual steps to perform.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> pt., 24 maj 2019 o 09:55 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > just a point to add about my initial setup. I assume the config for a
> > newbie is based on the wiki, so he has the environment vars setup (is a
> > requerimient for now), but he doesn't have maven repository filled since
> he
> > never tried to build.
> >
> > But one thing is clear, all process is very complex and filled with many
> > points that is our main problem to get traction. People coming is unable
> to
> > enter Royale world unless is perseverant and recover from various failed
> > tries.
> > Hope it would be some way to simplify all this to a minimum. Maybe the
> only
> > JS option, that will be hopefully what 90% of users would want from use,
> > could a super easy process, simple and with very few internal process
> that
> > ensures folks can succeed in 99% of cases. In the other hand, if they
> want
> > SWF stuff, then we have all the complexity with flash player, debugger,
> and
> > other adobe stuff that is an additional set of things with other
> > requerimients
> >
> > About videos, is ok for me to do both. The objective is to do 2-3 min
> > videos that will make a difference. Ultra short videos with just straight
> > to the core info are proven very useful, so we need something in that way
> > if we want people to join Royale.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 4:40, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't remember
> > > exactly, but I think it is:
> > >
> > > Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
> > > FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
> > >
> > > Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The
> > > rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the Adobe
> stuff
> > or
> > > they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and
> Carlos
> > > are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's configuration as
> > we
> > > wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while you
> and
> > > Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to be
> the
> > > requirement.
> > >
> > > The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to look,
> > > hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind this
> stuff
> > > and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release
> > automation.
> > >
> > > In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run without
> > > Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built, then
> > > SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is
> compared
> > > against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I don't
> > > remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no point in
> > > running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no Adobe
> > > artifacts.
> > >
> > > So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or don't
> > define
> > > any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to spend the
> > time
> > > getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main
> scenarios
> > > are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You don't
> > > have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want SWF
> > > artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I don't
> > > know.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them
> > if
> > > there are no SWF artifacts.'
> > >
> > > This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
> > > (short version) My failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER
> is
> > > defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2
> does
> > > not
> > > contain playerglobal swc
> > > But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles or
> > > anything
> > > specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
> > >
> > > (Details)
> > > I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I probably
> read
> > > about
> > > that at one point and have used them, but will go back to refresh
> my
> > > knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
> > > I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal
> method
> > > which
> > > looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx), this
> > > still
> > > tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming the
> > > debug
> > > player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g. error
> > > dialogs
> > > like TypeError: Error #2023: Class ASDateTests1933741105634631672$
> > must
> > > inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
> > >
> > > When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do see
> > > something
> > > a little confusing (to me).
> > >
> > > It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not, it
> > > bails
> > > and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
> > > But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the
> > > playerglobal
> > > swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
> > > if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks for
> the
> > > swc
> > > in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think it
> > > finds it
> > > after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things
> continue
> > to
> > > work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
> > >
> > > However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests
> phase
> > > passes and the build continues on to completion.
> > > So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined and
> > b)
> > > PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not contain
> > > playerglobal swc
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui
> <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you are
> > > trying to
> > > > help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both
> > > generating
> > > > SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't
> > > actually
> > > > helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts
> you
> > > are
> > > > expecting.
> > > >
> > > > I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact
> > without
> > > using
> > > > a profile to include it.
> > > >
> > > > You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and
> one
> > > for
> > > > not.
> > > >
> > > > If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running
> them
> > if
> > > > there are no SWF artifacts.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my
> motivation
> > > was
> > > > exactly
> > > > the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short
> > > video to
> > > > post
> > > > on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many,
> > > many
> > > > people
> > > > requested. And something I think will give us more users and
> > > exposure.
> > > >
> > > > I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove
> > > repository
> > > > folder
> > > > to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was
> > working.
> > > The
> > > > result
> > > > was it was failing.
> > > >
> > > > Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile
> > > added in
> > > > the
> > > > wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's
> > can
> > > try
> > > > this
> > > > to proof is a solution for anyone.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd
> > found
> > > royale
> > > > didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will
> > get
> > > > stuck.
> > > > Now, hopefully he will get it working.
> > > >
> > > > For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree
> > is
> > > put
> > > > skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build
> work
> > > > officially,
> > > > since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out,
> with
> > a
> > > > profile o
> > > > via command line, but official build should work with normal
> > > tests in a
> > > > first execution).
> > > >
> > > > About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but
> > > the fact
> > > > is
> > > > it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I,
> as
> > > you,
> > > > would
> > > > want the simplest way to build, that could be always the
> same,
> > > but
> > > > there's
> > > > a difference in a first maven build of royale against the
> > > subsequent
> > > > builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings...
> and
> > > the
> > > > -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we
> have
> > > now. So
> > > > is
> > > > important to test against an empty repository folder, unless
> we
> > > change
> > > > the
> > > > build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to
> > > happen
> > > > anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right
> > > now.
> > > >
> > > > I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two
> sets
> > of
> > > > outputs.
> > > > Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's
> other
> > > one you
> > > > know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly
> > > modify
> > > > wiki
> > > > page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it
> > > would be
> > > > great
> > > > since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
> > > >
> > > > If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> > > > 2
> > > > a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as
> > something
> > > to do
> > > > in a
> > > > concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing
> > > this), as
> > > > you
> > > > posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in
> > building
> > > from
> > > > scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
> > > >
> > > > b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in
> > develop,
> > > you
> > > > should
> > > > change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you
> will
> > > > introduce
> > > > in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and
> test
> > > it
> > > > againts
> > > > an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process
> > > and the
> > > > wiki
> > > > if needed.
> > > >
> > > > About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe
> > > better to
> > > > postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that
> > > doesn't get
> > > > obsolete in few days.
> > > >
> > > > It's ok for you?
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> > > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> > > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > > >)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not
> be
> > > able to
> > > > > respond
> > > > > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot
> > to
> > > catch
> > > > up
> > > > > on, but
> > > > > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools
> and
> > > > > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils"
> > > > profile. They
> > > > > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in
> > > 0.9.6.
> > > > They've
> > > > > been
> > > > > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks
> will
> > > need to
> > > > use
> > > > > the
> > > > > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those
> jars.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is
> needed
> > > for
> > > > that
> > > > > case,
> > > > > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to
> > > simplify
> > > > > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new
> > > comers
> > > > > confusion.
> > > > > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to
> > > execute when
> > > > > needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will
> > > need to
> > > > use the
> > > > > utils profile to build from scratch.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official
> > > playerglobal on
> > > > Maven.
> > > > > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to
> > > address
> > > > licensing
> > > > > > acceptance issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal
> > is
> > > > already on
> > > > > maven
> > > > > official repos, so my guest is we are served with that
> > and
> > > don't
> > > > need
> > > > > adobe
> > > > > host it in a maven repo.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal
> in
> > > this
> > > > way so
> > > > > we cannot use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the
> > Maven
> > > build
> > > > to
> > > > > work
> > > > > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and
> > probably
> > > > > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements
> > to
> > > > > playerglobal will
> > > > > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are
> in
> > > the
> > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > Maven profile.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now we need to do this:
> > > > >
> > > > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > > > -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > > > > so this means something is not working ok in a clean
> > > environment
> > > > for
> > > > > first
> > > > > build/install?
> > > > > For now, the current instructions works, but if that's
> > the
> > > case,
> > > > we
> > > > > should
> > > > > try to fix this in the future, although seems this is
> not
> > > urgent
> > > > while
> > > > > people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to
> > not
> > > > require
> > > > > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF
> > > versions is
> > > > > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these
> > changes,
> > > but
> > > > the
> > > > > solutions should consider that there are two different sets
> > of
> > > > output.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild)
> > are
> > > good
> > > > > reference
> > > > > > examples of Maven building things correctly on
> Windows.
> > > You
> > > > can
> > > > > compare
> > > > > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I was building without problem and still can build
> > without
> > > > problem. My
> > > > > concern was for the case people tries to build maven
> for
> > > the
> > > > first
> > > > > time,
> > > > > and was where I found problems. This problems are as
> well
> > > not
> > > > > reproduced in
> > > > > machines that are already working, since they pass the
> > > initial
> > > > setup.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal
> and/or
> > > > playerglobal
> > > > > exist
> > > > > > to determine whether the build is going to try to
> > output
> > > SWF
> > > > > versions of
> > > > > > the artifacts or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require
> > > airglobal/playerglobal
> > > > and
> > > > > build a
> > > > > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in
> > > the Ant
> > > > builds.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=tv9uPSXTrChT%2FGaw%2F2XtrpFcxJ46vDyzjH7jfYz6piU%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > is describing whole process without differentiation.
> > > > > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the
> > other
> > > hand
> > > > only
> > > > > JS?
> > > > > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and
> I
> > > > personally
> > > > > never
> > > > > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very
> > > > interesting
> > > > > since
> > > > > many people will really only build for JS, and if
> > sometime
> > > in the
> > > > > future we
> > > > > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will
> want
> > > to add
> > > > it and
> > > > > build JS/WEBASM
> > > > >
> > > > > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with
> these
> > > > changes to
> > > > > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but
> it
> > > would
> > > > be best
> > > > > to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've
> > > read
> > > > while
> > > > > skimming
> > > > > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you have to have in mind that we all was
> working
> > > right
> > > > with our
> > > > > current environment and that the problem comes from try
> > to
> > > start
> > > > from
> > > > > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler
> > since
> > > > requires
> > > > > shorter
> > > > > instructions.
> > > > > You should try to rename your "repository" folder and
> > > create a
> > > > new one
> > > > > and
> > > > > try to build with maven to see what you find and if we
> > can
> > > > improve
> > > > > actual
> > > > > findings.
> > > > >
> > > > > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It
> > > is, IMO,
> > > > more
> > > > > important for others to understand the goals and how this
> > stuff
> > > > works so it
> > > > > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not
> > an
> > > > expert, is
> > > > > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter.
> > Maven
> > > goes
> > > > and
> > > > > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only
> > > "trick"
> > > > is how
> > > > > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that
> > > doesn't
> > > > fetch
> > > > > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository
> > > > "shouldn't"
> > > > > make a difference and someone should figure out why, but
> only
> > > after
> > > > making
> > > > > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC
> > POMs
> > > in
> > > > > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts.
> > That
> > > > might be
> > > > > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the
> > > compiler
> > > > if not
> > > > > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> > > > >
> > > > > The key point is that you can't just "get it working for
> > > you". We
> > > > have to
> > > > > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=3lU8ntUGoybH%2BtfvVQNOtDS6NLDn4HIwaj75I82dQqM%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hey Guys,
Everything depends on what kind of user some of you wanted to get. I see
that there is and attempt in this thread of getting Developers who would
like to work on framework - however maybe it is easier to attract non
framework developers, people who wanted to use Royale, build application
without touching framework code.
I think additionally that building such a big framework will always have
some difficult instructions and quite often manual steps to perform.
Thanks,
Piotr
pt., 24 maj 2019 o 09:55 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> napisał(a):
> Hi,
>
> just a point to add about my initial setup. I assume the config for a
> newbie is based on the wiki, so he has the environment vars setup (is a
> requerimient for now), but he doesn't have maven repository filled since he
> never tried to build.
>
> But one thing is clear, all process is very complex and filled with many
> points that is our main problem to get traction. People coming is unable to
> enter Royale world unless is perseverant and recover from various failed
> tries.
> Hope it would be some way to simplify all this to a minimum. Maybe the only
> JS option, that will be hopefully what 90% of users would want from use,
> could a super easy process, simple and with very few internal process that
> ensures folks can succeed in 99% of cases. In the other hand, if they want
> SWF stuff, then we have all the complexity with flash player, debugger, and
> other adobe stuff that is an additional set of things with other
> requerimients
>
> About videos, is ok for me to do both. The objective is to do 2-3 min
> videos that will make a difference. Ultra short videos with just straight
> to the core info are proven very useful, so we need something in that way
> if we want people to join Royale.
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 4:40, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> escribió:
>
> > Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't remember
> > exactly, but I think it is:
> >
> > Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
> > FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
> >
> > Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The
> > rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the Adobe stuff
> or
> > they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and Carlos
> > are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's configuration as
> we
> > wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while you and
> > Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to be the
> > requirement.
> >
> > The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to look,
> > hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind this stuff
> > and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release
> automation.
> >
> > In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run without
> > Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built, then
> > SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is compared
> > against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I don't
> > remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no point in
> > running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no Adobe
> > artifacts.
> >
> > So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or don't
> define
> > any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to spend the
> time
> > getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main scenarios
> > are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You don't
> > have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want SWF
> > artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I don't
> > know.
> >
> > HTH,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them
> if
> > there are no SWF artifacts.'
> >
> > This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
> > (short version) My failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is
> > defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does
> > not
> > contain playerglobal swc
> > But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles or
> > anything
> > specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
> >
> > (Details)
> > I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I probably read
> > about
> > that at one point and have used them, but will go back to refresh my
> > knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
> > I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal method
> > which
> > looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx), this
> > still
> > tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming the
> > debug
> > player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g. error
> > dialogs
> > like TypeError: Error #2023: Class ASDateTests1933741105634631672$
> must
> > inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
> >
> > When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do see
> > something
> > a little confusing (to me).
> >
> > It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not, it
> > bails
> > and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
> > But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the
> > playerglobal
> > swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
> > if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks for the
> > swc
> > in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think it
> > finds it
> > after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things continue
> to
> > work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
> >
> > However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests phase
> > passes and the build continues on to completion.
> > So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined and
> b)
> > PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not contain
> > playerglobal swc
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you are
> > trying to
> > > help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both
> > generating
> > > SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't
> > actually
> > > helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts you
> > are
> > > expecting.
> > >
> > > I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact
> without
> > using
> > > a profile to include it.
> > >
> > > You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and one
> > for
> > > not.
> > >
> > > If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them
> if
> > > there are no SWF artifacts.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my motivation
> > was
> > > exactly
> > > the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short
> > video to
> > > post
> > > on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many,
> > many
> > > people
> > > requested. And something I think will give us more users and
> > exposure.
> > >
> > > I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove
> > repository
> > > folder
> > > to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was
> working.
> > The
> > > result
> > > was it was failing.
> > >
> > > Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile
> > added in
> > > the
> > > wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's
> can
> > try
> > > this
> > > to proof is a solution for anyone.
> > >
> > > IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd
> found
> > royale
> > > didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will
> get
> > > stuck.
> > > Now, hopefully he will get it working.
> > >
> > > For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree
> is
> > put
> > > skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build work
> > > officially,
> > > since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out, with
> a
> > > profile o
> > > via command line, but official build should work with normal
> > tests in a
> > > first execution).
> > >
> > > About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but
> > the fact
> > > is
> > > it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I, as
> > you,
> > > would
> > > want the simplest way to build, that could be always the same,
> > but
> > > there's
> > > a difference in a first maven build of royale against the
> > subsequent
> > > builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings... and
> > the
> > > -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we have
> > now. So
> > > is
> > > important to test against an empty repository folder, unless we
> > change
> > > the
> > > build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to
> > happen
> > > anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right
> > now.
> > >
> > > I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two sets
> of
> > > outputs.
> > > Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's other
> > one you
> > > know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly
> > modify
> > > wiki
> > > page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it
> > would be
> > > great
> > > since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
> > >
> > > If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> > > 2
> > > a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as
> something
> > to do
> > > in a
> > > concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing
> > this), as
> > > you
> > > posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in
> building
> > from
> > > scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
> > >
> > > b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in
> develop,
> > you
> > > should
> > > change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you will
> > > introduce
> > > in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and test
> > it
> > > againts
> > > an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process
> > and the
> > > wiki
> > > if needed.
> > >
> > > About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe
> > better to
> > > postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that
> > doesn't get
> > > obsolete in few days.
> > >
> > > It's ok for you?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > >)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be
> > able to
> > > > respond
> > > > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot
> to
> > catch
> > > up
> > > > on, but
> > > > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> > > > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils"
> > > profile. They
> > > > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in
> > 0.9.6.
> > > They've
> > > > been
> > > > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will
> > need to
> > > use
> > > > the
> > > > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed
> > for
> > > that
> > > > case,
> > > > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to
> > simplify
> > > > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new
> > comers
> > > > confusion.
> > > > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to
> > execute when
> > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will
> > need to
> > > use the
> > > > utils profile to build from scratch.
> > > >
> > > > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official
> > playerglobal on
> > > Maven.
> > > > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to
> > address
> > > licensing
> > > > > acceptance issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal
> is
> > > already on
> > > > maven
> > > > official repos, so my guest is we are served with that
> and
> > don't
> > > need
> > > > adobe
> > > > host it in a maven repo.
> > > >
> > > > Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in
> > this
> > > way so
> > > > we cannot use it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the
> Maven
> > build
> > > to
> > > > work
> > > > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and
> probably
> > > > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements
> to
> > > > playerglobal will
> > > > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in
> > the
> > > > appropriate
> > > > > Maven profile.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right now we need to do this:
> > > >
> > > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > > -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > > > so this means something is not working ok in a clean
> > environment
> > > for
> > > > first
> > > > build/install?
> > > > For now, the current instructions works, but if that's
> the
> > case,
> > > we
> > > > should
> > > > try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not
> > urgent
> > > while
> > > > people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
> > > >
> > > > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to
> not
> > > require
> > > > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF
> > versions is
> > > > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these
> changes,
> > but
> > > the
> > > > solutions should consider that there are two different sets
> of
> > > output.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild)
> are
> > good
> > > > reference
> > > > > examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows.
> > You
> > > can
> > > > compare
> > > > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was building without problem and still can build
> without
> > > problem. My
> > > > concern was for the case people tries to build maven for
> > the
> > > first
> > > > time,
> > > > and was where I found problems. This problems are as well
> > not
> > > > reproduced in
> > > > machines that are already working, since they pass the
> > initial
> > > setup.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or
> > > playerglobal
> > > > exist
> > > > > to determine whether the build is going to try to
> output
> > SWF
> > > > versions of
> > > > > the artifacts or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require
> > airglobal/playerglobal
> > > and
> > > > build a
> > > > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in
> > the Ant
> > > builds.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=tv9uPSXTrChT%2FGaw%2F2XtrpFcxJ46vDyzjH7jfYz6piU%3D&reserved=0
> > > > is describing whole process without differentiation.
> > > > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the
> other
> > hand
> > > only
> > > > JS?
> > > > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I
> > > personally
> > > > never
> > > > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very
> > > interesting
> > > > since
> > > > many people will really only build for JS, and if
> sometime
> > in the
> > > > future we
> > > > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want
> > to add
> > > it and
> > > > build JS/WEBASM
> > > >
> > > > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these
> > > changes to
> > > > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it
> > would
> > > be best
> > > > to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've
> > read
> > > while
> > > > skimming
> > > > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think you have to have in mind that we all was working
> > right
> > > with our
> > > > current environment and that the problem comes from try
> to
> > start
> > > from
> > > > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler
> since
> > > requires
> > > > shorter
> > > > instructions.
> > > > You should try to rename your "repository" folder and
> > create a
> > > new one
> > > > and
> > > > try to build with maven to see what you find and if we
> can
> > > improve
> > > > actual
> > > > findings.
> > > >
> > > > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It
> > is, IMO,
> > > more
> > > > important for others to understand the goals and how this
> stuff
> > > works so it
> > > > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not
> an
> > > expert, is
> > > > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter.
> Maven
> > goes
> > > and
> > > > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only
> > "trick"
> > > is how
> > > > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that
> > doesn't
> > > fetch
> > > > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository
> > > "shouldn't"
> > > > make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only
> > after
> > > making
> > > > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC
> POMs
> > in
> > > > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts.
> That
> > > might be
> > > > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the
> > compiler
> > > if not
> > > > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> > > >
> > > > The key point is that you can't just "get it working for
> > you". We
> > > have to
> > > > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> > > >
> > > > HTH,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=3lU8ntUGoybH%2BtfvVQNOtDS6NLDn4HIwaj75I82dQqM%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi,
I guess I am still not making my points clear to others.
Enough has changed that trusting what is in the wiki may not be correct. I'm sorry that I did not update that article when I made the last changes. I didn't know it existed.
Can some volunteers please:
1) not set any environment variables and clear out their local repository and see if you can build all 3 repos without specifying the SWF profiles?
2) set FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER and any other environment variables, clear out their local repository, and use the SWF profiles to build all 3 repos?
IMO, we should restrict ourselves to these two scenarios. My point of my previous post is that everyone who has replied on this thread may already be in a bad starting state because we used to only have one set of output and required setting environment variables. The use of environment variables is not only no longer a requirement, but must not be used when trying to build without SWF artifacts.
I suppose I can get around to this eventually, but it will be better to have others know how all of this stuff works.
-Alex
On 5/24/19, 12:55 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi,
just a point to add about my initial setup. I assume the config for a
newbie is based on the wiki, so he has the environment vars setup (is a
requerimient for now), but he doesn't have maven repository filled since he
never tried to build.
But one thing is clear, all process is very complex and filled with many
points that is our main problem to get traction. People coming is unable to
enter Royale world unless is perseverant and recover from various failed
tries.
Hope it would be some way to simplify all this to a minimum. Maybe the only
JS option, that will be hopefully what 90% of users would want from use,
could a super easy process, simple and with very few internal process that
ensures folks can succeed in 99% of cases. In the other hand, if they want
SWF stuff, then we have all the complexity with flash player, debugger, and
other adobe stuff that is an additional set of things with other
requerimients
About videos, is ok for me to do both. The objective is to do 2-3 min
videos that will make a difference. Ultra short videos with just straight
to the core info are proven very useful, so we need something in that way
if we want people to join Royale.
thanks
El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 4:40, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't remember
> exactly, but I think it is:
>
> Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
> FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
>
> Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The
> rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the Adobe stuff or
> they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and Carlos
> are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's configuration as we
> wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while you and
> Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to be the
> requirement.
>
> The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to look,
> hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind this stuff
> and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release automation.
>
> In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run without
> Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built, then
> SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is compared
> against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I don't
> remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no point in
> running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no Adobe
> artifacts.
>
> So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or don't define
> any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to spend the time
> getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main scenarios
> are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You don't
> have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want SWF
> artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I don't
> know.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
> there are no SWF artifacts.'
>
> This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
> (short version) My failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is
> defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does
> not
> contain playerglobal swc
> But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles or
> anything
> specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
>
> (Details)
> I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I probably read
> about
> that at one point and have used them, but will go back to refresh my
> knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
> I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal method
> which
> looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx), this
> still
> tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming the
> debug
> player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g. error
> dialogs
> like TypeError: Error #2023: Class ASDateTests1933741105634631672$ must
> inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
>
> When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do see
> something
> a little confusing (to me).
>
> It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not, it
> bails
> and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
> But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the
> playerglobal
> swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
> if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks for the
> swc
> in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think it
> finds it
> after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things continue to
> work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
>
> However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests phase
> passes and the build continues on to completion.
> So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined and b)
> PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not contain
> playerglobal swc
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you are
> trying to
> > help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both
> generating
> > SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't
> actually
> > helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts you
> are
> > expecting.
> >
> > I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact without
> using
> > a profile to include it.
> >
> > You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and one
> for
> > not.
> >
> > If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
> > there are no SWF artifacts.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my motivation
> was
> > exactly
> > the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short
> video to
> > post
> > on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many,
> many
> > people
> > requested. And something I think will give us more users and
> exposure.
> >
> > I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove
> repository
> > folder
> > to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was working.
> The
> > result
> > was it was failing.
> >
> > Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile
> added in
> > the
> > wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's can
> try
> > this
> > to proof is a solution for anyone.
> >
> > IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd found
> royale
> > didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will get
> > stuck.
> > Now, hopefully he will get it working.
> >
> > For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree is
> put
> > skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build work
> > officially,
> > since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out, with a
> > profile o
> > via command line, but official build should work with normal
> tests in a
> > first execution).
> >
> > About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but
> the fact
> > is
> > it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I, as
> you,
> > would
> > want the simplest way to build, that could be always the same,
> but
> > there's
> > a difference in a first maven build of royale against the
> subsequent
> > builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings... and
> the
> > -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we have
> now. So
> > is
> > important to test against an empty repository folder, unless we
> change
> > the
> > build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to
> happen
> > anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right
> now.
> >
> > I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two sets of
> > outputs.
> > Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's other
> one you
> > know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly
> modify
> > wiki
> > page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it
> would be
> > great
> > since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
> >
> > If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> > 2
> > a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as something
> to do
> > in a
> > concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing
> this), as
> > you
> > posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in building
> from
> > scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
> >
> > b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in develop,
> you
> > should
> > change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you will
> > introduce
> > in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and test
> it
> > againts
> > an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process
> and the
> > wiki
> > if needed.
> >
> > About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe
> better to
> > postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that
> doesn't get
> > obsolete in few days.
> >
> > It's ok for you?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > >)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be
> able to
> > > respond
> > > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to
> catch
> > up
> > > on, but
> > > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> > > >
> > > > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> > > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils"
> > profile. They
> > > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in
> 0.9.6.
> > They've
> > > been
> > > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will
> need to
> > use
> > > the
> > > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed
> for
> > that
> > > case,
> > > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to
> simplify
> > > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new
> comers
> > > confusion.
> > > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to
> execute when
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will
> need to
> > use the
> > > utils profile to build from scratch.
> > >
> > > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official
> playerglobal on
> > Maven.
> > > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to
> address
> > licensing
> > > > acceptance issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is
> > already on
> > > maven
> > > official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and
> don't
> > need
> > > adobe
> > > host it in a maven repo.
> > >
> > > Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in
> this
> > way so
> > > we cannot use it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven
> build
> > to
> > > work
> > > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> > > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to
> > > playerglobal will
> > > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in
> the
> > > appropriate
> > > > Maven profile.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right now we need to do this:
> > >
> > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > > so this means something is not working ok in a clean
> environment
> > for
> > > first
> > > build/install?
> > > For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the
> case,
> > we
> > > should
> > > try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not
> urgent
> > while
> > > people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
> > >
> > > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to not
> > require
> > > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF
> versions is
> > > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these changes,
> but
> > the
> > > solutions should consider that there are two different sets of
> > output.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are
> good
> > > reference
> > > > examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows.
> You
> > can
> > > compare
> > > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was building without problem and still can build without
> > problem. My
> > > concern was for the case people tries to build maven for
> the
> > first
> > > time,
> > > and was where I found problems. This problems are as well
> not
> > > reproduced in
> > > machines that are already working, since they pass the
> initial
> > setup.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or
> > playerglobal
> > > exist
> > > > to determine whether the build is going to try to output
> SWF
> > > versions of
> > > > the artifacts or not.
> > > >
> > > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require
> airglobal/playerglobal
> > and
> > > build a
> > > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in
> the Ant
> > builds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8326e6bd96e34ecd557f08d6e01d2955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942813191086629&sdata=zeoz9XicQ%2FaRQAquWl6rTi2ZctI2VnviudKUL%2BjhlPI%3D&reserved=0
> > > is describing whole process without differentiation.
> > > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other
> hand
> > only
> > > JS?
> > > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I
> > personally
> > > never
> > > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very
> > interesting
> > > since
> > > many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime
> in the
> > > future we
> > > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want
> to add
> > it and
> > > build JS/WEBASM
> > >
> > > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these
> > changes to
> > > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it
> would
> > be best
> > > to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've
> read
> > while
> > > skimming
> > > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think you have to have in mind that we all was working
> right
> > with our
> > > current environment and that the problem comes from try to
> start
> > from
> > > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since
> > requires
> > > shorter
> > > instructions.
> > > You should try to rename your "repository" folder and
> create a
> > new one
> > > and
> > > try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can
> > improve
> > > actual
> > > findings.
> > >
> > > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It
> is, IMO,
> > more
> > > important for others to understand the goals and how this stuff
> > works so it
> > > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not an
> > expert, is
> > > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter. Maven
> goes
> > and
> > > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only
> "trick"
> > is how
> > > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that
> doesn't
> > fetch
> > > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository
> > "shouldn't"
> > > make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only
> after
> > making
> > > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC POMs
> in
> > > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts. That
> > might be
> > > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the
> compiler
> > if not
> > > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> > >
> > > The key point is that you can't just "get it working for
> you". We
> > have to
> > > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8326e6bd96e34ecd557f08d6e01d2955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942813191086629&sdata=f9zf5q7Kqa%2Bq3VQu%2FpEm9hAlpwgFi3VbH6u%2FzXtnlDY%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8326e6bd96e34ecd557f08d6e01d2955%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942813191086629&sdata=f9zf5q7Kqa%2Bq3VQu%2FpEm9hAlpwgFi3VbH6u%2FzXtnlDY%3D&reserved=0
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
just a point to add about my initial setup. I assume the config for a
newbie is based on the wiki, so he has the environment vars setup (is a
requerimient for now), but he doesn't have maven repository filled since he
never tried to build.
But one thing is clear, all process is very complex and filled with many
points that is our main problem to get traction. People coming is unable to
enter Royale world unless is perseverant and recover from various failed
tries.
Hope it would be some way to simplify all this to a minimum. Maybe the only
JS option, that will be hopefully what 90% of users would want from use,
could a super easy process, simple and with very few internal process that
ensures folks can succeed in 99% of cases. In the other hand, if they want
SWF stuff, then we have all the complexity with flash player, debugger, and
other adobe stuff that is an additional set of things with other
requerimients
About videos, is ok for me to do both. The objective is to do 2-3 min
videos that will make a difference. Ultra short videos with just straight
to the core info are proven very useful, so we need something in that way
if we want people to join Royale.
thanks
El vie., 24 may. 2019 a las 4:40, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't remember
> exactly, but I think it is:
>
> Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
> FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
>
> Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The
> rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the Adobe stuff or
> they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and Carlos
> are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's configuration as we
> wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while you and
> Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to be the
> requirement.
>
> The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to look,
> hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind this stuff
> and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release automation.
>
> In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run without
> Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built, then
> SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is compared
> against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I don't
> remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no point in
> running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no Adobe
> artifacts.
>
> So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or don't define
> any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to spend the time
> getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main scenarios
> are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You don't
> have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want SWF
> artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I don't
> know.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
> there are no SWF artifacts.'
>
> This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
> (short version) My failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is
> defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does
> not
> contain playerglobal swc
> But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles or
> anything
> specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
>
> (Details)
> I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I probably read
> about
> that at one point and have used them, but will go back to refresh my
> knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
> I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal method
> which
> looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx), this
> still
> tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming the
> debug
> player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g. error
> dialogs
> like TypeError: Error #2023: Class ASDateTests1933741105634631672$ must
> inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
>
> When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do see
> something
> a little confusing (to me).
>
> It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not, it
> bails
> and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
> But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the
> playerglobal
> swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
> if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks for the
> swc
> in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think it
> finds it
> after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things continue to
> work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
>
> However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests phase
> passes and the build continues on to completion.
> So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined and b)
> PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not contain
> playerglobal swc
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you are
> trying to
> > help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both
> generating
> > SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't
> actually
> > helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts you
> are
> > expecting.
> >
> > I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact without
> using
> > a profile to include it.
> >
> > You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and one
> for
> > not.
> >
> > If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
> > there are no SWF artifacts.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my motivation
> was
> > exactly
> > the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short
> video to
> > post
> > on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many,
> many
> > people
> > requested. And something I think will give us more users and
> exposure.
> >
> > I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove
> repository
> > folder
> > to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was working.
> The
> > result
> > was it was failing.
> >
> > Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile
> added in
> > the
> > wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's can
> try
> > this
> > to proof is a solution for anyone.
> >
> > IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd found
> royale
> > didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will get
> > stuck.
> > Now, hopefully he will get it working.
> >
> > For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree is
> put
> > skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build work
> > officially,
> > since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out, with a
> > profile o
> > via command line, but official build should work with normal
> tests in a
> > first execution).
> >
> > About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but
> the fact
> > is
> > it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I, as
> you,
> > would
> > want the simplest way to build, that could be always the same,
> but
> > there's
> > a difference in a first maven build of royale against the
> subsequent
> > builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings... and
> the
> > -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we have
> now. So
> > is
> > important to test against an empty repository folder, unless we
> change
> > the
> > build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to
> happen
> > anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right
> now.
> >
> > I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two sets of
> > outputs.
> > Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's other
> one you
> > know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly
> modify
> > wiki
> > page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it
> would be
> > great
> > since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
> >
> > If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> > 2
> > a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as something
> to do
> > in a
> > concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing
> this), as
> > you
> > posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in building
> from
> > scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
> >
> > b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in develop,
> you
> > should
> > change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you will
> > introduce
> > in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and test
> it
> > againts
> > an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process
> and the
> > wiki
> > if needed.
> >
> > About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe
> better to
> > postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that
> doesn't get
> > obsolete in few days.
> >
> > It's ok for you?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > >)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be
> able to
> > > respond
> > > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to
> catch
> > up
> > > on, but
> > > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> > > >
> > > > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> > > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils"
> > profile. They
> > > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in
> 0.9.6.
> > They've
> > > been
> > > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will
> need to
> > use
> > > the
> > > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed
> for
> > that
> > > case,
> > > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to
> simplify
> > > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new
> comers
> > > confusion.
> > > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to
> execute when
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will
> need to
> > use the
> > > utils profile to build from scratch.
> > >
> > > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official
> playerglobal on
> > Maven.
> > > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to
> address
> > licensing
> > > > acceptance issues.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is
> > already on
> > > maven
> > > official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and
> don't
> > need
> > > adobe
> > > host it in a maven repo.
> > >
> > > Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in
> this
> > way so
> > > we cannot use it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven
> build
> > to
> > > work
> > > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> > > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to
> > > playerglobal will
> > > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in
> the
> > > appropriate
> > > > Maven profile.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right now we need to do this:
> > >
> > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > > so this means something is not working ok in a clean
> environment
> > for
> > > first
> > > build/install?
> > > For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the
> case,
> > we
> > > should
> > > try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not
> urgent
> > while
> > > people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
> > >
> > > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to not
> > require
> > > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF
> versions is
> > > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these changes,
> but
> > the
> > > solutions should consider that there are two different sets of
> > output.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are
> good
> > > reference
> > > > examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows.
> You
> > can
> > > compare
> > > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was building without problem and still can build without
> > problem. My
> > > concern was for the case people tries to build maven for
> the
> > first
> > > time,
> > > and was where I found problems. This problems are as well
> not
> > > reproduced in
> > > machines that are already working, since they pass the
> initial
> > setup.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or
> > playerglobal
> > > exist
> > > > to determine whether the build is going to try to output
> SWF
> > > versions of
> > > > the artifacts or not.
> > > >
> > > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require
> airglobal/playerglobal
> > and
> > > build a
> > > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in
> the Ant
> > builds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=tv9uPSXTrChT%2FGaw%2F2XtrpFcxJ46vDyzjH7jfYz6piU%3D&reserved=0
> > > is describing whole process without differentiation.
> > > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other
> hand
> > only
> > > JS?
> > > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I
> > personally
> > > never
> > > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very
> > interesting
> > > since
> > > many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime
> in the
> > > future we
> > > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want
> to add
> > it and
> > > build JS/WEBASM
> > >
> > > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these
> > changes to
> > > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it
> would
> > be best
> > > to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've
> read
> > while
> > > skimming
> > > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think you have to have in mind that we all was working
> right
> > with our
> > > current environment and that the problem comes from try to
> start
> > from
> > > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since
> > requires
> > > shorter
> > > instructions.
> > > You should try to rename your "repository" folder and
> create a
> > new one
> > > and
> > > try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can
> > improve
> > > actual
> > > findings.
> > >
> > > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It
> is, IMO,
> > more
> > > important for others to understand the goals and how this stuff
> > works so it
> > > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not an
> > expert, is
> > > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter. Maven
> goes
> > and
> > > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only
> "trick"
> > is how
> > > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that
> doesn't
> > fetch
> > > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository
> > "shouldn't"
> > > make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only
> after
> > making
> > > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC POMs
> in
> > > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts. That
> > might be
> > > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the
> compiler
> > if not
> > > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> > >
> > > The key point is that you can't just "get it working for
> you". We
> > have to
> > > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=3lU8ntUGoybH%2BtfvVQNOtDS6NLDn4HIwaj75I82dQqM%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Over in Ant, there are some rules (at least for now). I don't remember exactly, but I think it is:
Either define all 3 variables (PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME, FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER) or don't define any of them.
Nobody has had the time to make the other combinations work. The rationale is that either someone took the time to set up the Adobe stuff or they didn't. And so, when long-time committers like yourself and Carlos are testing, you may not be testing in a true newbie's configuration as we wouldn't expect them to have any environment variables set, while you and Carlos probably have at least some of them set since that used to be the requirement.
The same may be true for Maven. I still haven't found time to look, hoping one of you will eventually understand the logic behind this stuff and figure it out so I can keep making progress on the release automation.
In the TestAdapters, IIRC, some of the compiler tests can run without Adobe artifacts and/or Flash Player Debugger. A SWF is built, then SWFDump'd (but never launched in a Flash Player) and the dump is compared against a reference dump. I know AntTestAdapter does this, I don't remember if MavenTestAdapter does, hence what I wrote about no point in running tests in JS-Only if there are no SWF artifacts and/or no Adobe artifacts.
So, IMO, either define all 3 environment variables for Ant or don't define any. And for Maven, the same might be true. If you want to spend the time getting other combinations to work, fine, but IMO the two main scenarios are 1) You have the Adobe stuff and want SWF artifacts, or 2) You don't have the Adobe stuff nor any environment variables and don’t want SWF artifacts. Maybe we don't have to skip tests in those setups. I don't know.
HTH,
-Alex
On 5/23/19, 3:36 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
there are no SWF artifacts.'
This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
(short version) My failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is
defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not
contain playerglobal swc
But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles or anything
specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
(Details)
I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I probably read about
that at one point and have used them, but will go back to refresh my
knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal method which
looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx), this still
tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming the debug
player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g. error dialogs
like TypeError: Error #2023: Class ASDateTests1933741105634631672$ must
inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do see something
a little confusing (to me).
It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not, it bails
and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the playerglobal
swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks for the swc
in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think it finds it
after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things continue to
work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests phase
passes and the build continues on to completion.
So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined and b)
PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not contain
playerglobal swc
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you are trying to
> help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both generating
> SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't actually
> helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts you are
> expecting.
>
> I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact without using
> a profile to include it.
>
> You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and one for
> not.
>
> If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
> there are no SWF artifacts.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my motivation was
> exactly
> the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short video to
> post
> on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many, many
> people
> requested. And something I think will give us more users and exposure.
>
> I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove repository
> folder
> to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was working. The
> result
> was it was failing.
>
> Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile added in
> the
> wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's can try
> this
> to proof is a solution for anyone.
>
> IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd found royale
> didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will get
> stuck.
> Now, hopefully he will get it working.
>
> For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree is put
> skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build work
> officially,
> since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out, with a
> profile o
> via command line, but official build should work with normal tests in a
> first execution).
>
> About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but the fact
> is
> it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I, as you,
> would
> want the simplest way to build, that could be always the same, but
> there's
> a difference in a first maven build of royale against the subsequent
> builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings... and the
> -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we have now. So
> is
> important to test against an empty repository folder, unless we change
> the
> build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to happen
> anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right now.
>
> I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two sets of
> outputs.
> Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's other one you
> know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly modify
> wiki
> page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it would be
> great
> since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
>
> If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> 2
> a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as something to do
> in a
> concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing this), as
> you
> posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in building from
> scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
>
> b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in develop, you
> should
> change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you will
> introduce
> in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and test it
> againts
> an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process and the
> wiki
> if needed.
>
> About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe better to
> postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that doesn't get
> obsolete in few days.
>
> It's ok for you?
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> escribió:
>
> >
> >
> > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be able to
> > respond
> > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to catch
> up
> > on, but
> > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> > >
> > > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils"
> profile. They
> > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in 0.9.6.
> They've
> > been
> > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will need to
> use
> > the
> > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
> > >
> > >
> > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed for
> that
> > case,
> > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to simplify
> > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new comers
> > confusion.
> > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to execute when
> > needed.
> >
> > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will need to
> use the
> > utils profile to build from scratch.
> >
> > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official playerglobal on
> Maven.
> > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to address
> licensing
> > > acceptance issues.
> > >
> >
> > For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is
> already on
> > maven
> > official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and don't
> need
> > adobe
> > host it in a maven repo.
> >
> > Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in this
> way so
> > we cannot use it.
> >
> > >
> > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven build
> to
> > work
> > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to
> > playerglobal will
> > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in the
> > appropriate
> > > Maven profile.
> > >
> >
> > Right now we need to do this:
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > so this means something is not working ok in a clean environment
> for
> > first
> > build/install?
> > For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the case,
> we
> > should
> > try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not urgent
> while
> > people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
> >
> > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to not
> require
> > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF versions is
> > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these changes, but
> the
> > solutions should consider that there are two different sets of
> output.
> >
> > >
> > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are good
> > reference
> > > examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows. You
> can
> > compare
> > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > >
> >
> > I was building without problem and still can build without
> problem. My
> > concern was for the case people tries to build maven for the
> first
> > time,
> > and was where I found problems. This problems are as well not
> > reproduced in
> > machines that are already working, since they pass the initial
> setup.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or
> playerglobal
> > exist
> > > to determine whether the build is going to try to output SWF
> > versions of
> > > the artifacts or not.
> > >
> > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require airglobal/playerglobal
> and
> > build a
> > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in the Ant
> builds.
> > >
> >
> > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=tv9uPSXTrChT%2FGaw%2F2XtrpFcxJ46vDyzjH7jfYz6piU%3D&reserved=0
> > is describing whole process without differentiation.
> > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other hand
> only
> > JS?
> > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I
> personally
> > never
> > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very
> interesting
> > since
> > many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime in the
> > future we
> > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want to add
> it and
> > build JS/WEBASM
> >
> > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these
> changes to
> > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it would
> be best
> > to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
> >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've read
> while
> > skimming
> > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > >
> >
> > I think you have to have in mind that we all was working right
> with our
> > current environment and that the problem comes from try to start
> from
> > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since
> requires
> > shorter
> > instructions.
> > You should try to rename your "repository" folder and create a
> new one
> > and
> > try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can
> improve
> > actual
> > findings.
> >
> > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It is, IMO,
> more
> > important for others to understand the goals and how this stuff
> works so it
> > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not an
> expert, is
> > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter. Maven goes
> and
> > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only "trick"
> is how
> > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that doesn't
> fetch
> > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository
> "shouldn't"
> > make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only after
> making
> > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC POMs in
> > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts. That
> might be
> > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the compiler
> if not
> > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> >
> > The key point is that you can't just "get it working for you". We
> have to
> > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> >
> > HTH,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C216792e9f44d47dff61208d6dfcf2157%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942478056043286&sdata=3lU8ntUGoybH%2BtfvVQNOtDS6NLDn4HIwaj75I82dQqM%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
'If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
there are no SWF artifacts.'
This is just an info dump, in case the following is useful:
(short version) My failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is
defined and b) PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not
contain playerglobal swc
But this is just with standard maven build, not with profiles or anything
specified. Also on windows, in case that matters in any way.
(Details)
I am still getting to grips with 'profiles' in maven. I probably read about
that at one point and have used them, but will go back to refresh my
knowledge (now that I understand more of the basics).
I did observe that the MavenTestAdapter has a getPlayerGlobal method which
looks for the swc in the tests for compiler (not compiler-jx), this still
tries to run the tests if playerglobal is missing (and assuming the debug
player is available), but the player has bad bytecode (e.g. error dialogs
like TypeError: Error #2023: Class ASDateTests1933741105634631672$ must
inherit from Sprite to link to the root.)
When I look at getPlayerglobal() inside MavenTestAdapter I do see something
a little confusing (to me).
It checks to see if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined. If it is not, it bails
and returns null. This will cause an error later in testing
But PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME does not appear to be used to find the playerglobal
swc anywhere else, so this check may not even be relevant.
if PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is defined, then it ignores it and looks for the swc
in System.getProperty("mavenLocalRepoDir"). This is why I think it finds it
after it has been cached in local m2 and perhaps why things continue to
work when it is removed from the pom dependencies.
However, if I unset FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER env var then the tests phase
passes and the build continues on to completion.
So my failing combination is a) FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER is defined and b)
PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME is not defined and/or local m2 does not contain
playerglobal swc
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:33 AM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you are trying to
> help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both generating
> SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't actually
> helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts you are
> expecting.
>
> I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact without using
> a profile to include it.
>
> You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and one for
> not.
>
> If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if
> there are no SWF artifacts.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my motivation was
> exactly
> the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short video to
> post
> on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many, many
> people
> requested. And something I think will give us more users and exposure.
>
> I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove repository
> folder
> to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was working. The
> result
> was it was failing.
>
> Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile added in
> the
> wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's can try
> this
> to proof is a solution for anyone.
>
> IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd found royale
> didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will get
> stuck.
> Now, hopefully he will get it working.
>
> For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree is put
> skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build work
> officially,
> since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out, with a
> profile o
> via command line, but official build should work with normal tests in a
> first execution).
>
> About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but the fact
> is
> it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I, as you,
> would
> want the simplest way to build, that could be always the same, but
> there's
> a difference in a first maven build of royale against the subsequent
> builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings... and the
> -Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we have now. So
> is
> important to test against an empty repository folder, unless we change
> the
> build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to happen
> anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right now.
>
> I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two sets of
> outputs.
> Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's other one you
> know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly modify
> wiki
> page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it would be
> great
> since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
>
> If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
> 2
> a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as something to do
> in a
> concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing this), as
> you
> posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in building from
> scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
>
> b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in develop, you
> should
> change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you will
> introduce
> in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and test it
> againts
> an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process and the
> wiki
> if needed.
>
> About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe better to
> postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that doesn't get
> obsolete in few days.
>
> It's ok for you?
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui
> (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> escribió:
>
> >
> >
> > On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui
> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be able to
> > respond
> > > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to catch
> up
> > on, but
> > > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> > >
> > > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> > > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils"
> profile. They
> > > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in 0.9.6.
> They've
> > been
> > > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will need to
> use
> > the
> > > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
> > >
> > >
> > Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed for
> that
> > case,
> > but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to simplify
> > instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new comers
> > confusion.
> > So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to execute when
> > needed.
> >
> > As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will need to
> use the
> > utils profile to build from scratch.
> >
> > > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official playerglobal on
> Maven.
> > > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to address
> licensing
> > > acceptance issues.
> > >
> >
> > For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is
> already on
> > maven
> > official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and don't
> need
> > adobe
> > host it in a maven repo.
> >
> > Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in this
> way so
> > we cannot use it.
> >
> > >
> > > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven build
> to
> > work
> > > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> > > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to
> > playerglobal will
> > > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in the
> > appropriate
> > > Maven profile.
> > >
> >
> > Right now we need to do this:
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > so this means something is not working ok in a clean environment
> for
> > first
> > build/install?
> > For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the case,
> we
> > should
> > try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not urgent
> while
> > people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
> >
> > The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to not
> require
> > Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF versions is
> > opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these changes, but
> the
> > solutions should consider that there are two different sets of
> output.
> >
> > >
> > > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are good
> > reference
> > > examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows. You
> can
> > compare
> > > your setup and console output to those builds.
> > >
> >
> > I was building without problem and still can build without
> problem. My
> > concern was for the case people tries to build maven for the
> first
> > time,
> > and was where I found problems. This problems are as well not
> > reproduced in
> > machines that are already working, since they pass the initial
> setup.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or
> playerglobal
> > exist
> > > to determine whether the build is going to try to output SWF
> > versions of
> > > the artifacts or not.
> > >
> > > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require airglobal/playerglobal
> and
> > build a
> > > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in the Ant
> builds.
> > >
> >
> > So, this wiki walkthrough:
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb2aa222889e146d467ab08d6dfa95bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942315815634189&sdata=P0y3B4j%2Bf7Tg%2BtdB%2FjS%2BlbdBrTOrmUzgRnTFeOHMwEc%3D&reserved=0
> > is describing whole process without differentiation.
> > can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other hand
> only
> > JS?
> > I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I
> personally
> > never
> > try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very
> interesting
> > since
> > many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime in the
> > future we
> > have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want to add
> it and
> > build JS/WEBASM
> >
> > I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these
> changes to
> > not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it would
> be best
> > to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
> >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've read
> while
> > skimming
> > > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> > >
> >
> > I think you have to have in mind that we all was working right
> with our
> > current environment and that the problem comes from try to start
> from
> > scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since
> requires
> > shorter
> > instructions.
> > You should try to rename your "repository" folder and create a
> new one
> > and
> > try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can
> improve
> > actual
> > findings.
> >
> > Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It is, IMO,
> more
> > important for others to understand the goals and how this stuff
> works so it
> > isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not an
> expert, is
> > that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter. Maven goes
> and
> > gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only "trick"
> is how
> > the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that doesn't
> fetch
> > from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository
> "shouldn't"
> > make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only after
> making
> > sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC POMs in
> > royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts. That
> might be
> > the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the compiler
> if not
> > using SWF artifacts via some profile.
> >
> > The key point is that you can't just "get it working for you". We
> have to
> > maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
> >
> > HTH,
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb2aa222889e146d467ab08d6dfa95bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942315815634189&sdata=idbblu%2BMTCg1mEjTPyymzJ8W1GebB3ksThLI3CzdPr0%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
I guess I am not making a clear statement. I understand you are trying to help others, but unless you have tested from scratch with both generating SWF artifacts and not generating SWF artifacts then you haven't actually helped everyone, just those who want the same set of artifacts you are expecting.
I would not expect any solution to include an Adobe artifact without using a profile to include it.
You might need two videos, one for generating SWF artifacts and one for not.
If our tests require Flash, then there is no point in running them if there are no SWF artifacts.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 5/23/19, 11:06 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex,
I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my motivation was exactly
the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short video to post
on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many, many people
requested. And something I think will give us more users and exposure.
I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove repository folder
to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was working. The result
was it was failing.
Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile added in the
wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's can try this
to proof is a solution for anyone.
IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd found royale
didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will get stuck.
Now, hopefully he will get it working.
For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree is put
skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build work officially,
since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out, with a profile o
via command line, but official build should work with normal tests in a
first execution).
About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but the fact is
it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I, as you, would
want the simplest way to build, that could be always the same, but there's
a difference in a first maven build of royale against the subsequent
builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings... and the
-Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we have now. So is
important to test against an empty repository folder, unless we change the
build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to happen
anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right now.
I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two sets of outputs.
Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's other one you
know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly modify wiki
page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it would be great
since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
2
a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as something to do in a
concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing this), as you
posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in building from
scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in develop, you should
change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you will introduce
in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and test it againts
an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process and the wiki
if needed.
About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe better to
postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that doesn't get
obsolete in few days.
It's ok for you?
thanks
El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
>
>
> On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be able to
> respond
> > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to catch up
> on, but
> > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> >
> > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils" profile. They
> > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in 0.9.6. They've
> been
> > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will need to use
> the
> > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
> >
> >
> Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed for that
> case,
> but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to simplify
> instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new comers
> confusion.
> So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to execute when
> needed.
>
> As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will need to use the
> utils profile to build from scratch.
>
> > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official playerglobal on Maven.
> > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to address licensing
> > acceptance issues.
> >
>
> For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is already on
> maven
> official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and don't need
> adobe
> host it in a maven repo.
>
> Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in this way so
> we cannot use it.
>
> >
> > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven build to
> work
> > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to
> playerglobal will
> > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in the
> appropriate
> > Maven profile.
> >
>
> Right now we need to do this:
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> so this means something is not working ok in a clean environment for
> first
> build/install?
> For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the case, we
> should
> try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not urgent while
> people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
>
> The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to not require
> Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF versions is
> opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these changes, but the
> solutions should consider that there are two different sets of output.
>
> >
> > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are good
> reference
> > examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows. You can
> compare
> > your setup and console output to those builds.
> >
>
> I was building without problem and still can build without problem. My
> concern was for the case people tries to build maven for the first
> time,
> and was where I found problems. This problems are as well not
> reproduced in
> machines that are already working, since they pass the initial setup.
>
>
> >
> > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or playerglobal
> exist
> > to determine whether the build is going to try to output SWF
> versions of
> > the artifacts or not.
> >
> > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require airglobal/playerglobal and
> build a
> > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in the Ant builds.
> >
>
> So, this wiki walkthrough:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb2aa222889e146d467ab08d6dfa95bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942315815634189&sdata=P0y3B4j%2Bf7Tg%2BtdB%2FjS%2BlbdBrTOrmUzgRnTFeOHMwEc%3D&reserved=0
> is describing whole process without differentiation.
> can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other hand only
> JS?
> I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I personally
> never
> try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very interesting
> since
> many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime in the
> future we
> have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want to add it and
> build JS/WEBASM
>
> I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these changes to
> not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it would be best
> to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've read while
> skimming
> > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> >
>
> I think you have to have in mind that we all was working right with our
> current environment and that the problem comes from try to start from
> scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since requires
> shorter
> instructions.
> You should try to rename your "repository" folder and create a new one
> and
> try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can improve
> actual
> findings.
>
> Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It is, IMO, more
> important for others to understand the goals and how this stuff works so it
> isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not an expert, is
> that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter. Maven goes and
> gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only "trick" is how
> the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that doesn't fetch
> from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository "shouldn't"
> make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only after making
> sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC POMs in
> royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts. That might be
> the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the compiler if not
> using SWF artifacts via some profile.
>
> The key point is that you can't just "get it working for you". We have to
> maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb2aa222889e146d467ab08d6dfa95bd1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942315815634189&sdata=idbblu%2BMTCg1mEjTPyymzJ8W1GebB3ksThLI3CzdPr0%3D&reserved=0
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
I'm not getting this working only for me, in fact my motivation was exactly
the opposite. The final motivation is to able to do a short video to post
on an Apache Royale youtube channel, since is something many, many people
requested. And something I think will give us more users and exposure.
I was working without problem each day. I tried to remove repository folder
to simulate a "day 0" like a new user to see if all was working. The result
was it was failing.
Now with a dependency added in compiler's pom and a profile added in the
wiki instructions, I was able to build from scratch. Other's can try this
to proof is a solution for anyone.
IOW, If a new user tries the wiki steps some days ago he'd found royale
didn't build, and fails with the error exposed here, and will get stuck.
Now, hopefully he will get it working.
For me is ok, all you say (maybe the only thing I don't agree is put
skipTests to false as an official way to make maven build work officially,
since in maven tests are mandatory, and you must opt-out, with a profile o
via command line, but official build should work with normal tests in a
first execution).
About having a repository or not: This should not matter, but the fact is
it currently does, independently of what any of us want. I, as you, would
want the simplest way to build, that could be always the same, but there's
a difference in a first maven build of royale against the subsequent
builds, that can be simplified (removing the -s settings... and the
-Pprofile..). I didn't design the process, but is what we have now. So is
important to test against an empty repository folder, unless we change the
build process and get it more simpler, what I don't expect to happen
anytime soon, since all of us have many things on plate right now.
I think we all understand the goals, and that we have two sets of outputs.
Right now, I only know how to get one of them. If there's other one you
know you can post it here and I can put on wiki, or directly modify wiki
page that is the official one. If you can do the second, it would be great
since it will be more accurate to what you have in mind.
If you have no time fo now what we can do is:
2
a) I can reintroduce the "-Putils" line in the wiki as something to do in a
concrete case, since right now (at the time we are writing this), as you
posted is important in a concrete situation, but not in building from
scratch (for now until your changes will be merged).
b) As soon as you get your branch working and merged in develop, you should
change the wiki to conform to the needs of the changes you will introduce
in your branch. I'll be interested in give a hand here and test it againts
an empty repo, and from a Mac, and help to refine the process and the wiki
if needed.
About the planned video, since is a time consuming work maybe better to
postpone until your work is merged so I can create one that doesn't get
obsolete in few days.
It's ok for you?
thanks
El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 18:29, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
>
>
> On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be able to
> respond
> > fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to catch up
> on, but
> > let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
> >
> > 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> > compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils" profile. They
> > haven't changed in develop, but they will change in 0.9.6. They've
> been
> > changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will need to use
> the
> > "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
> >
> >
> Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed for that
> case,
> but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to simplify
> instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new comers
> confusion.
> So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to execute when
> needed.
>
> As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will need to use the
> utils profile to build from scratch.
>
> > 2) Adobe will probably never publish official playerglobal on Maven.
> > There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to address licensing
> > acceptance issues.
> >
>
> For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is already on
> maven
> official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and don't need
> adobe
> host it in a maven repo.
>
> Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in this way so
> we cannot use it.
>
> >
> > 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven build to
> work
> > without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> > playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to
> playerglobal will
> > defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in the
> appropriate
> > Maven profile.
> >
>
> Right now we need to do this:
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> so this means something is not working ok in a clean environment for
> first
> build/install?
> For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the case, we
> should
> try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not urgent while
> people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
>
> The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to not require
> Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF versions is
> opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these changes, but the
> solutions should consider that there are two different sets of output.
>
> >
> > 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are good
> reference
> > examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows. You can
> compare
> > your setup and console output to those builds.
> >
>
> I was building without problem and still can build without problem. My
> concern was for the case people tries to build maven for the first
> time,
> and was where I found problems. This problems are as well not
> reproduced in
> machines that are already working, since they pass the initial setup.
>
>
> >
> > 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or playerglobal
> exist
> > to determine whether the build is going to try to output SWF
> versions of
> > the artifacts or not.
> >
> > 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require airglobal/playerglobal and
> build a
> > JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in the Ant builds.
> >
>
> So, this wiki walkthrough:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf3c261d90f824385445a08d6df65f91c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942026440791368&sdata=wTZxsgMFU%2Fb8FSW%2BiuHCYfTk50wAIDEQBWi8yy1KjN8%3D&reserved=0
> is describing whole process without differentiation.
> can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other hand only
> JS?
> I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I personally
> never
> try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very interesting
> since
> many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime in the
> future we
> have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want to add it and
> build JS/WEBASM
>
> I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these changes to
> not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it would be best
> to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've read while
> skimming
> > over this thread so far may not be correct.
> >
>
> I think you have to have in mind that we all was working right with our
> current environment and that the problem comes from try to start from
> scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since requires
> shorter
> instructions.
> You should try to rename your "repository" folder and create a new one
> and
> try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can improve
> actual
> findings.
>
> Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It is, IMO, more
> important for others to understand the goals and how this stuff works so it
> isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not an expert, is
> that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter. Maven goes and
> gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only "trick" is how
> the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that doesn't fetch
> from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository "shouldn't"
> make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only after making
> sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC POMs in
> royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts. That might be
> the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the compiler if not
> using SWF artifacts via some profile.
>
> The key point is that you can't just "get it working for you". We have to
> maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 5/23/19, 3:04 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex,
El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be able to respond
> fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to catch up on, but
> let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
>
> 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils" profile. They
> haven't changed in develop, but they will change in 0.9.6. They've been
> changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will need to use the
> "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
>
>
Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed for that case,
but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to simplify
instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new comers confusion.
So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to execute when needed.
As soon as I merge release_practice into develop, you will need to use the utils profile to build from scratch.
> 2) Adobe will probably never publish official playerglobal on Maven.
> There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to address licensing
> acceptance issues.
>
For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is already on maven
official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and don't need adobe
host it in a maven repo.
Adobe has not given permission to distribute playerglobal in this way so we cannot use it.
>
> 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven build to work
> without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to playerglobal will
> defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in the appropriate
> Maven profile.
>
Right now we need to do this:
mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
so this means something is not working ok in a clean environment for first
build/install?
For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the case, we should
try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not urgent while
people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
The goal for Maven, like the goal for the Ant builds, is to not require Adobe artifacts and build JS-only versions. Building SWF versions is opt-in. I'm not surprised there are bugs after these changes, but the solutions should consider that there are two different sets of output.
>
> 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are good reference
> examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows. You can compare
> your setup and console output to those builds.
>
I was building without problem and still can build without problem. My
concern was for the case people tries to build maven for the first time,
and was where I found problems. This problems are as well not reproduced in
machines that are already working, since they pass the initial setup.
>
> 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or playerglobal exist
> to determine whether the build is going to try to output SWF versions of
> the artifacts or not.
>
> 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require airglobal/playerglobal and build a
> JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in the Ant builds.
>
So, this wiki walkthrough:
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cf3c261d90f824385445a08d6df65f91c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636942026440791368&sdata=wTZxsgMFU%2Fb8FSW%2BiuHCYfTk50wAIDEQBWi8yy1KjN8%3D&reserved=0
is describing whole process without differentiation.
can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other hand only JS?
I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I personally never
try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very interesting since
many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime in the future we
have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want to add it and
build JS/WEBASM
I was unaware of the page so it didn’t get updated with these changes to not require SWF artifacts. So it does need updating, but it would be best to first make it clear that there are two sets of output.
>
> Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've read while skimming
> over this thread so far may not be correct.
>
I think you have to have in mind that we all was working right with our
current environment and that the problem comes from try to start from
scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since requires shorter
instructions.
You should try to rename your "repository" folder and create a new one and
try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can improve actual
findings.
Someday I will find time to do that. May not be today. It is, IMO, more important for others to understand the goals and how this stuff works so it isn't all on me. My understanding of Maven, which I am not an expert, is that what is in your local repository shouldn’t matter. Maven goes and gets the dependencies you ask for in the pom.xml. The only "trick" is how the Mavenizer extension works. That is the only thing that doesn't fetch from Maven Central. So renaming or flushing the repository "shouldn't" make a difference and someone should figure out why, but only after making sure the configurations make sense. Maybe all of the SWC POMs in royale-asjs need a profile that opt-in the SWF artifacts. That might be the actual issue. And maybe we set skipTests=false in the compiler if not using SWF artifacts via some profile.
The key point is that you can't just "get it working for you". We have to maintain the two sets of outputs for others.
HTH,
-Alex
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
El jue., 23 may. 2019 a las 3:49, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be able to respond
> fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to catch up on, but
> let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
>
> 1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and
> compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils" profile. They
> haven't changed in develop, but they will change in 0.9.6. They've been
> changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will need to use the
> "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
>
>
Ok, so we should put in wiki that utils profile is needed for that case,
but not for "initial" build case. I'm worried to try to simplify
instructions and process to minumun needs to avoid new comers confusion.
So, I'll mention utils profile as a special case to execute when needed.
> 2) Adobe will probably never publish official playerglobal on Maven.
> There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to address licensing
> acceptance issues.
>
For what we discussed in the thread, seems playerglobal is already on maven
official repos, so my guest is we are served with that and don't need adobe
host it in a maven repo.
>
> 3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven build to work
> without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably
> playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to playerglobal will
> defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in the appropriate
> Maven profile.
>
Right now we need to do this:
mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
so this means something is not working ok in a clean environment for first
build/install?
For now, the current instructions works, but if that's the case, we should
try to fix this in the future, although seems this is not urgent while
people is capable of build Royale in the current way.
>
> 4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are good reference
> examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows. You can compare
> your setup and console output to those builds.
>
I was building without problem and still can build without problem. My
concern was for the case people tries to build maven for the first time,
and was where I found problems. This problems are as well not reproduced in
machines that are already working, since they pass the initial setup.
>
> 5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or playerglobal exist
> to determine whether the build is going to try to output SWF versions of
> the artifacts or not.
>
> 6) The default, IIRC, is to not require airglobal/playerglobal and build a
> JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in the Ant builds.
>
So, this wiki walkthrough:
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
is describing whole process without differentiation.
can be updated to build with maven SWF/JS and in the other hand only JS?
I think the actual page description us for SWF/JS, and I personally never
try / or know how to build just JS, what would be very interesting since
many people will really only build for JS, and if sometime in the future we
have other interesting target like WebAsembly, will want to add it and
build JS/WEBASM
>
> Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've read while skimming
> over this thread so far may not be correct.
>
I think you have to have in mind that we all was working right with our
current environment and that the problem comes from try to start from
scratch. Subsequents builds instructions are simpler since requires shorter
instructions.
You should try to rename your "repository" folder and create a new one and
try to build with maven to see what you find and if we can improve actual
findings.
Thanks Alex!
Carlos
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/22/19, 12:17 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Seems like you have made great progress - well done!
>
> re:
>
> "Seems player global is available here?
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmvnrepository.com%2Fartifact%2Fcom.adobe.flash.framework%2Fplayerglobal&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755181756&sdata=m7eGCEle51O%2BT3Yri9Ob2XWoEsLHcNNx0mVXcMyMRhI%3D&reserved=0
> Could we use this? "
>
> I used that one as well yesterday, but iiuc that is actually at:
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frepository.jspresso.org%2Fmaven2%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=%2BABLeHwUx9DEep%2B6qGDRt7oYxKAUVmSw6NZtB%2FDrqX8%3D&reserved=0
> It did not work under https and I don't know what status that has in
> terms
> of its validity etc. Maybe it's ok, but I would assume something
> official
> from Adobe would be better (if possible).
>
> For the extension.xml inside .mvn folder I did not try commenting that
> it
> in the compiler build. I only did that in the asjs build and it did not
> affect things. Maybe it does something, but I only saw warnings.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:09 AM Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is my test of a complete build with maven that worked
> successfully:
> >
> > I tried to remove my repository folder content completely to make
> all from
> > scratch, and remove personal maven servers in my settings.xml file to
> > ensure I'm in the most generic case (and don't have access to things
> I
> > could have in my server like Flash Player).
> >
> > Conclusions:
> >
> > 1.- Compiler
> >
> > I need to add Greg proposed dependency in "compiler/pom.xml"
> >
> > <dependency>
> > <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> > <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> > <version>${flash.version}</version>
> > <type>swc</type>
> > <scope>test</scope>
> > </dependency>
> >
> > without this running
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> >
> > fails to run Flash Player Debugger
> > but with that dependency maven asks to download flash player and all
> works
> > perfectly and build succeed. So without this people running without
> > -DskipTests will get a problem when the process try to run tests.
> >
> > Note: I don't need to do this step:
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -P utils
> > If nobody objects, I'll remove it in the wiki since compiler since
> seems a
> > useless step in the current situation, and great to be able to
> simplify
> > process a bit
> >
> > 2.- TypeDefs
> >
> > Nothing changes here
> >
> > 3.- ASJS repo
> >
> > The change is to update the command line to this:
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> >
> > (add the profile part generate-swcs-for-swf)
> >
> > for first time build with maven
> >
> > I tried to comment the extension (asked by Greg)
> >
> > <extension>
> > <groupId>org.apache.flex.utilities.converter</groupId>
> > <artifactId>flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension</artifactId>
> > <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> > </extension>
> >
> > but doing this makes build fail since it doesn't ask about flash
> player and
> > the error is the same I got and the start of this thread (like
> running
> > without profile option)
> >
> > If no body objects, I'll update:
> >
> > 1.- compiler/pom.xml with dependency
> > 2.- wiki with changes commented here
> >
> > thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 12:04, Carlos Rovira (<
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I was able to use a profile I found, I think maybe Alex prepared
> this
> > > profile for this initial case?
> > >
> > > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > >
> > > So I'll update wiki adding this: -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> > >
> > > ok?
> > >
> > >
> > > El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 11:01, Carlos Rovira (<
> > carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > >> Hi Greg,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 6:35, Greg Dove (<greg.dove@gmail.com
> >)
> > >> escribió:
> > >>
> > >>> Two things as follow up:
> > >>> (1)
> > >>> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in
> the
> > >>> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference
> to a
> > >>> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my
> > >>> m2/settings.xml.
> > >>>
> > >>> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by
> adding a
> > >>> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
> > >>> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from
> Adobe for
> > >>> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about
> this?
> > >>> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has
> anyone
> > >>> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the
> playerglobals at:
> > >>>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepo.adobe.com%2Fnexus%2Fcontent%2Fgroups%2Fpublic&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=tZcTmWIy5jK9%2BAr8fnW5Vd5%2F%2FI%2F5fUi14dPuR9iTL78%3D&reserved=0
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Seems player global is available here?
> > >>
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmvnrepository.com%2Fartifact%2Fcom.adobe.flash.framework%2Fplayerglobal&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=KE5AziHyYEvGt6t0jKdktrsrIsrXEPf7aTqlKmkLM9k%3D&reserved=0
> > >> Could we use this?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> (2)
> > >>> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on
> windows.
> > This
> > >>> was a tough one to find.
> > >>> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommit%2Fa89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=2VkBkHR%2F9NUR1ORx4wFW7MfaAXYwIWJ9C8Up8paYl3U%3D&reserved=0
> > >>> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to
> false:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fblob%2Fa89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5%2Fpom.xml%23L62&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=JOiuwscsTqccF7NVs9rH5olCG0dPHNRHN0IVDl6PN3U%3D&reserved=0
> > >>>
> > >>> I see in a later commit comment something about this being
> optional.
> > >>> Alex,
> > >>> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should
> be the
> > >>> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Thanks for finding this, I'm going to try setting it to false, and
> > report
> > >> if this works with an empty repo
> > >> If that works, we should do some change to make it easy for new
> comers,
> > >> maybe updating the instruction provided here:
> > >>
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=ynk2%2B5FKUpU%2FpKBTqvGdji1bvYFKmHz1YVO%2FQ5gJMAE%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > >> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> > >>
> > >> with some additional part -DskipAs=false or something (don't know
> right
> > >> now, I'll need to check how to do this on command line)
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Greg, for finding this :)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Carlos Rovira
> > >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=WZJcGE3HCNP2KQx%2FqNzRUkfsex0Xpyczq02m0EhlNzQ%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=WZJcGE3HCNP2KQx%2FqNzRUkfsex0Xpyczq02m0EhlNzQ%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=WZJcGE3HCNP2KQx%2FqNzRUkfsex0Xpyczq02m0EhlNzQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Before we go too far in any one direction, I may not be able to respond fully to this thread today as there seems to be a lot to catch up on, but let me try to summarize the goals of the Maven build.
1) There are some helper jars (compiler-build-tools and compiler-jburg-types). They are built by the "utils" profile. They haven't changed in develop, but they will change in 0.9.6. They've been changed in the release_practice branch. So folks will need to use the "utils" profile whenever we (rarely) change those jars.
2) Adobe will probably never publish official playerglobal on Maven. There is a whole bunch of logic in the Mavenizer to address licensing acceptance issues.
3) IIRC, the most recent changes were to allow the Maven build to work without requiring SWF versions of artifacts and probably playerglobal/airglobal. So, adding hard requirements to playerglobal will defeat this capability unless those dependencies are in the appropriate Maven profile.
4) The CI builds (builds.a.o and apachroyalecibuild) are good reference examples of Maven building things correctly on Windows. You can compare your setup and console output to those builds.
5) There might be some assumption that airglobal and/or playerglobal exist to determine whether the build is going to try to output SWF versions of the artifacts or not.
6) The default, IIRC, is to not require airglobal/playerglobal and build a JS-Only set of artifacts similar to how it is done in the Ant builds.
Unfortunately, that means that most of the ideas I've read while skimming over this thread so far may not be correct.
HTH,
-Alex
On 5/22/19, 12:17 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Seems like you have made great progress - well done!
re:
"Seems player global is available here?
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmvnrepository.com%2Fartifact%2Fcom.adobe.flash.framework%2Fplayerglobal&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755181756&sdata=m7eGCEle51O%2BT3Yri9Ob2XWoEsLHcNNx0mVXcMyMRhI%3D&reserved=0
Could we use this? "
I used that one as well yesterday, but iiuc that is actually at:
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frepository.jspresso.org%2Fmaven2%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=%2BABLeHwUx9DEep%2B6qGDRt7oYxKAUVmSw6NZtB%2FDrqX8%3D&reserved=0
It did not work under https and I don't know what status that has in terms
of its validity etc. Maybe it's ok, but I would assume something official
from Adobe would be better (if possible).
For the extension.xml inside .mvn folder I did not try commenting that it
in the compiler build. I only did that in the asjs build and it did not
affect things. Maybe it does something, but I only saw warnings.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:09 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is my test of a complete build with maven that worked successfully:
>
> I tried to remove my repository folder content completely to make all from
> scratch, and remove personal maven servers in my settings.xml file to
> ensure I'm in the most generic case (and don't have access to things I
> could have in my server like Flash Player).
>
> Conclusions:
>
> 1.- Compiler
>
> I need to add Greg proposed dependency in "compiler/pom.xml"
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> <type>swc</type>
> <scope>test</scope>
> </dependency>
>
> without this running
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
>
> fails to run Flash Player Debugger
> but with that dependency maven asks to download flash player and all works
> perfectly and build succeed. So without this people running without
> -DskipTests will get a problem when the process try to run tests.
>
> Note: I don't need to do this step:
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -P utils
> If nobody objects, I'll remove it in the wiki since compiler since seems a
> useless step in the current situation, and great to be able to simplify
> process a bit
>
> 2.- TypeDefs
>
> Nothing changes here
>
> 3.- ASJS repo
>
> The change is to update the command line to this:
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
>
> (add the profile part generate-swcs-for-swf)
>
> for first time build with maven
>
> I tried to comment the extension (asked by Greg)
>
> <extension>
> <groupId>org.apache.flex.utilities.converter</groupId>
> <artifactId>flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension</artifactId>
> <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </extension>
>
> but doing this makes build fail since it doesn't ask about flash player and
> the error is the same I got and the start of this thread (like running
> without profile option)
>
> If no body objects, I'll update:
>
> 1.- compiler/pom.xml with dependency
> 2.- wiki with changes commented here
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 12:04, Carlos Rovira (<carlosrovira@apache.org
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was able to use a profile I found, I think maybe Alex prepared this
> > profile for this initial case?
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> >
> > So I'll update wiki adding this: -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> >
> > ok?
> >
> >
> > El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 11:01, Carlos Rovira (<
> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> > escribió:
> >
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >>
> >> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 6:35, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
> >> escribió:
> >>
> >>> Two things as follow up:
> >>> (1)
> >>> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
> >>> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
> >>> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my
> >>> m2/settings.xml.
> >>>
> >>> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
> >>> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
> >>> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
> >>> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
> >>> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
> >>> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
> >>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepo.adobe.com%2Fnexus%2Fcontent%2Fgroups%2Fpublic&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=tZcTmWIy5jK9%2BAr8fnW5Vd5%2F%2FI%2F5fUi14dPuR9iTL78%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Seems player global is available here?
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmvnrepository.com%2Fartifact%2Fcom.adobe.flash.framework%2Fplayerglobal&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=KE5AziHyYEvGt6t0jKdktrsrIsrXEPf7aTqlKmkLM9k%3D&reserved=0
> >> Could we use this?
> >>
> >>
> >>> (2)
> >>> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows.
> This
> >>> was a tough one to find.
> >>> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fcommit%2Fa89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=2VkBkHR%2F9NUR1ORx4wFW7MfaAXYwIWJ9C8Up8paYl3U%3D&reserved=0
> >>> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fblob%2Fa89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5%2Fpom.xml%23L62&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=JOiuwscsTqccF7NVs9rH5olCG0dPHNRHN0IVDl6PN3U%3D&reserved=0
> >>>
> >>> I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional.
> >>> Alex,
> >>> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
> >>> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Thanks for finding this, I'm going to try setting it to false, and
> report
> >> if this works with an empty repo
> >> If that works, we should do some change to make it easy for new comers,
> >> maybe updating the instruction provided here:
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fwiki%2FBuild-Apache-Royale-with-Maven&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=ynk2%2B5FKUpU%2FpKBTqvGdji1bvYFKmHz1YVO%2FQ5gJMAE%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> >>
> >> with some additional part -DskipAs=false or something (don't know right
> >> now, I'll need to check how to do this on command line)
> >>
> >> Thanks Greg, for finding this :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=WZJcGE3HCNP2KQx%2FqNzRUkfsex0Xpyczq02m0EhlNzQ%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=WZJcGE3HCNP2KQx%2FqNzRUkfsex0Xpyczq02m0EhlNzQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ca56f03d9d16e4b1511e708d6deea2df7%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636941494755191755&sdata=WZJcGE3HCNP2KQx%2FqNzRUkfsex0Xpyczq02m0EhlNzQ%3D&reserved=0
>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Greg,
El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 21:17, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
escribió:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Seems like you have made great progress - well done!
>
> re:
>
> "Seems player global is available here?
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.adobe.flash.framework/playerglobal
> Could we use this? "
>
> I used that one as well yesterday, but iiuc that is actually at:
> http://repository.jspresso.org/maven2/
> It did not work under https and I don't know what status that has in terms
> of its validity etc. Maybe it's ok, but I would assume something official
> from Adobe would be better (if possible).
>
>
From my experience testing all the environment seems finally that is does
not needed.
What I understand (maybe I could be wrong) the extension.xml is what does
the magic for flash player.
> For the extension.xml inside .mvn folder I did not try commenting that it
> in the compiler build. I only did that in the asjs build and it did not
> affect things. Maybe it does something, but I only saw warnings.
>
>
I only commented extension in royale-asjs repo, and my testing was on that
part not compiler.
I was not aware that the extension was as well present in compiler part.
But I assume commenting it will do the same as in ASJS repo and will make
the compiler repo fails to build,
so I think we should maintain that part
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carlos,
Seems like you have made great progress - well done!
re:
"Seems player global is available here?
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.adobe.flash.framework/playerglobal
Could we use this? "
I used that one as well yesterday, but iiuc that is actually at:
http://repository.jspresso.org/maven2/
It did not work under https and I don't know what status that has in terms
of its validity etc. Maybe it's ok, but I would assume something official
from Adobe would be better (if possible).
For the extension.xml inside .mvn folder I did not try commenting that it
in the compiler build. I only did that in the asjs build and it did not
affect things. Maybe it does something, but I only saw warnings.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:09 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is my test of a complete build with maven that worked successfully:
>
> I tried to remove my repository folder content completely to make all from
> scratch, and remove personal maven servers in my settings.xml file to
> ensure I'm in the most generic case (and don't have access to things I
> could have in my server like Flash Player).
>
> Conclusions:
>
> 1.- Compiler
>
> I need to add Greg proposed dependency in "compiler/pom.xml"
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> <type>swc</type>
> <scope>test</scope>
> </dependency>
>
> without this running
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
>
> fails to run Flash Player Debugger
> but with that dependency maven asks to download flash player and all works
> perfectly and build succeed. So without this people running without
> -DskipTests will get a problem when the process try to run tests.
>
> Note: I don't need to do this step:
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -P utils
> If nobody objects, I'll remove it in the wiki since compiler since seems a
> useless step in the current situation, and great to be able to simplify
> process a bit
>
> 2.- TypeDefs
>
> Nothing changes here
>
> 3.- ASJS repo
>
> The change is to update the command line to this:
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
>
> (add the profile part generate-swcs-for-swf)
>
> for first time build with maven
>
> I tried to comment the extension (asked by Greg)
>
> <extension>
> <groupId>org.apache.flex.utilities.converter</groupId>
> <artifactId>flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension</artifactId>
> <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
> </extension>
>
> but doing this makes build fail since it doesn't ask about flash player and
> the error is the same I got and the start of this thread (like running
> without profile option)
>
> If no body objects, I'll update:
>
> 1.- compiler/pom.xml with dependency
> 2.- wiki with changes commented here
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 12:04, Carlos Rovira (<carlosrovira@apache.org
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was able to use a profile I found, I think maybe Alex prepared this
> > profile for this initial case?
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> >
> > So I'll update wiki adding this: -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
> >
> > ok?
> >
> >
> > El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 11:01, Carlos Rovira (<
> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> > escribió:
> >
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >>
> >> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 6:35, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
> >> escribió:
> >>
> >>> Two things as follow up:
> >>> (1)
> >>> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
> >>> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
> >>> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my
> >>> m2/settings.xml.
> >>>
> >>> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
> >>> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
> >>> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
> >>> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
> >>> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
> >>> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
> >>> https://repo.adobe.com/nexus/content/groups/public
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Seems player global is available here?
> >>
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.adobe.flash.framework/playerglobal
> >> Could we use this?
> >>
> >>
> >>> (2)
> >>> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows.
> This
> >>> was a tough one to find.
> >>> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5
> >>> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5/pom.xml#L62
> >>>
> >>> I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional.
> >>> Alex,
> >>> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
> >>> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Thanks for finding this, I'm going to try setting it to false, and
> report
> >> if this works with an empty repo
> >> If that works, we should do some change to make it easy for new comers,
> >> maybe updating the instruction provided here:
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
> >>
> >> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
> >>
> >> with some additional part -DskipAs=false or something (don't know right
> >> now, I'll need to check how to do this on command line)
> >>
> >> Thanks Greg, for finding this :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
this is my test of a complete build with maven that worked successfully:
I tried to remove my repository folder content completely to make all from
scratch, and remove personal maven servers in my settings.xml file to
ensure I'm in the most generic case (and don't have access to things I
could have in my server like Flash Player).
Conclusions:
1.- Compiler
I need to add Greg proposed dependency in "compiler/pom.xml"
<dependency>
<groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
<artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
<version>${flash.version}</version>
<type>swc</type>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
without this running
mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
fails to run Flash Player Debugger
but with that dependency maven asks to download flash player and all works
perfectly and build succeed. So without this people running without
-DskipTests will get a problem when the process try to run tests.
Note: I don't need to do this step:
mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -P utils
If nobody objects, I'll remove it in the wiki since compiler since seems a
useless step in the current situation, and great to be able to simplify
process a bit
2.- TypeDefs
Nothing changes here
3.- ASJS repo
The change is to update the command line to this:
mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
(add the profile part generate-swcs-for-swf)
for first time build with maven
I tried to comment the extension (asked by Greg)
<extension>
<groupId>org.apache.flex.utilities.converter</groupId>
<artifactId>flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
</extension>
but doing this makes build fail since it doesn't ask about flash player and
the error is the same I got and the start of this thread (like running
without profile option)
If no body objects, I'll update:
1.- compiler/pom.xml with dependency
2.- wiki with changes commented here
thanks
El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 12:04, Carlos Rovira (<ca...@apache.org>)
escribió:
> Hi,
>
> I was able to use a profile I found, I think maybe Alex prepared this
> profile for this initial case?
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
>
> So I'll update wiki adding this: -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
>
> ok?
>
>
> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 11:01, Carlos Rovira (<ca...@apache.org>)
> escribió:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>>
>> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 6:35, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
>> escribió:
>>
>>> Two things as follow up:
>>> (1)
>>> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
>>> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
>>> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my
>>> m2/settings.xml.
>>>
>>> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
>>> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
>>> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
>>> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
>>> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
>>> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
>>> https://repo.adobe.com/nexus/content/groups/public
>>>
>>>
>> Seems player global is available here?
>> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.adobe.flash.framework/playerglobal
>> Could we use this?
>>
>>
>>> (2)
>>> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows. This
>>> was a tough one to find.
>>> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5
>>> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5/pom.xml#L62
>>>
>>> I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional.
>>> Alex,
>>> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
>>> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for finding this, I'm going to try setting it to false, and report
>> if this works with an empty repo
>> If that works, we should do some change to make it easy for new comers,
>> maybe updating the instruction provided here:
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
>>
>> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
>>
>> with some additional part -DskipAs=false or something (don't know right
>> now, I'll need to check how to do this on command line)
>>
>> Thanks Greg, for finding this :)
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I was able to use a profile I found, I think maybe Alex prepared this
profile for this initial case?
mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
So I'll update wiki adding this: -Pgenerate-swcs-for-swf
ok?
El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 11:01, Carlos Rovira (<ca...@apache.org>)
escribió:
> Hi Greg,
>
>
> El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 6:35, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
>> Two things as follow up:
>> (1)
>> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
>> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
>> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my
>> m2/settings.xml.
>>
>> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
>> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
>> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
>> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
>> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
>> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
>> https://repo.adobe.com/nexus/content/groups/public
>>
>>
> Seems player global is available here?
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.adobe.flash.framework/playerglobal
> Could we use this?
>
>
>> (2)
>> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows. This
>> was a tough one to find.
>> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5
>> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5/pom.xml#L62
>>
>> I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional. Alex,
>> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
>> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks for finding this, I'm going to try setting it to false, and report
> if this works with an empty repo
> If that works, we should do some change to make it easy for new comers,
> maybe updating the instruction provided here:
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
>
> with some additional part -DskipAs=false or something (don't know right
> now, I'll need to check how to do this on command line)
>
> Thanks Greg, for finding this :)
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Greg,
El mié., 22 may. 2019 a las 6:35, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
escribió:
> Two things as follow up:
> (1)
> Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
> compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
> specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my m2/settings.xml.
>
> It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
> repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
> But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
> these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
> Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
> asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
> https://repo.adobe.com/nexus/content/groups/public
>
>
Seems player global is available here?
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.adobe.flash.framework/playerglobal
Could we use this?
> (2)
> Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows. This
> was a tough one to find.
> I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5
> I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5/pom.xml#L62
>
> I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional. Alex,
> what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
> opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
>
>
>
Thanks for finding this, I'm going to try setting it to false, and report
if this works with an empty repo
If that works, we should do some change to make it easy for new comers,
maybe updating the instruction provided here:
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
mvn -s settings-template.xml clean install
with some additional part -DskipAs=false or something (don't know right
now, I'll need to check how to do this on command line)
Thanks Greg, for finding this :)
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
Two things as follow up:
(1)
Actually, going back to that last comment about playerglobal in the
compiler... It was only working for me because I had reference to a
specific repository that hosts the playerglobal.swcs in my m2/settings.xml.
It was also possible to get it working in a fresh build by adding a
repository to the top level compiler pom.xml.
But I guess there is not an official maven distribution from Adobe for
these swcs... Alex do you have any insight you can share about this?
Will it be available via Adobe, I guess is my question, i.e. has anyone
asked internally if Adobe would be ok to host the the playerglobals at:
https://repo.adobe.com/nexus/content/groups/public
(2)
Beyond that I was eventually able to repro Carlos' issue on windows. This
was a tough one to find.
I believe the build issue is related to this commit:
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5
I got it to work again by changing this value from from true to false:
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a89b07a60179f0568d2441445f1396e160a13ae5/pom.xml#L62
I see in a later commit comment something about this being optional. Alex,
what did you intend the default to be, is it possible it should be the
opposite in that parent pom (which fixes the build for me)?
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:15 AM Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I tried building the compiler after deleting the playerglobal part of m2.
> It failed on the tests. But you are skipping tests which should be
> optional.
>
> I manged to get that working by adding :
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
> <version>${flash.version}</version>
> <type>swc</type>
> <scope>test</scope>
> </dependency>
>
> to the bottom of the royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
> (I put it in test scope which seemed 'right' for me, but I am not a maven
> expert!)
>
> I will see what happens with the rest of the build, which is proceeding. I
> will try to repro your issue.
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:53 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Greg,
>> I tried to copy
>>
>> m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>>
>> folder (I have there 11.1, 15.0, 20.0 and 27.0), but the error is the same
>>
>>
>>
>> El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 22:26, Carlos Rovira (<
>> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
>> escribió:
>>
>> > ok Greg
>> >
>> > thanks for trying. I'm afraid that others trying Royale for the first
>> time
>> > find stuck in this kind of error.
>> > Finally I'd like to make a video tutorial with something from scratch
>> > since people is demanding it
>> > So getting things working from 0 would be great to plan that video
>> >
>> > thanks
>> >
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> >
>> > El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 21:47, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
>> > escribió:
>> >
>> >> In the past I had issues I think sometimes with missing correct
>> >> playerglobal. I recall one time manually installing it in
>> >>
>> >> .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>> >>
>> >> iirc this is something that may not be apparent unless you have a fresh
>> >> start with maven.
>> >> I will try the same thing later today, and see if I have the same
>> issue.
>> >> If
>> >> it is that issue, then maybe it can be solved by declaring it in a
>> pom.xml
>> >> (e.g. for Binding) - I will see if I can figure it out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:14 AM Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we
>> >> could
>> >> > have.
>> >> > So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
>> >> > dependencies
>> >> >
>> >> > I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
>> >> >
>> >> > I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
>> >> >
>> >> > but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
>> >> >
>> >> > mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
>> >> >
>> >> > And build failed in Core:
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
>> >> >
>> >> > Downloading from apache-snapshots:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>> >> >
>> >> > Downloading from apache.snapshots:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
>> >> > 0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ...................
>> *SUCCESS*
>> >> [
>> >> > 1.597 s]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ...........................
>> *SUCCESS*
>> >> [
>> >> > 0.239 s]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts ....................
>> *SUCCESS*
>> >> [
>> >> > 3.678 s]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs .....................
>> *SUCCESS*
>> >> [
>> >> > 0.576 s]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ...............
>> *SUCCESS*
>> >> [
>> >> > 4.432 s]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............
>> *FAILURE*
>> >> [
>> >> > 0.663 s]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........
>> *SKIPPED*
>> >> >
>> >> > The error is
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
>> >> >
>> >> > [*INFO*]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
>> >> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
>> >> > dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason:
>> Missing:*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] *1)
>> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project
>> >> website.*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
>> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can
>> >> deploy
>> >> > the file there: *
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
>> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * 1)
>> org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * 2)
>> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (
>> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/
>> >> > <http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/>, releases=false,
>> >> > snapshots=true),*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-release
>> >> > (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
>> >> > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>,
>> >> > releases=true, snapshots=false),*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (
>> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots
>> >> > <https://repository.apache.org/snapshots>, releases=false,
>> >> > snapshots=true),*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] * central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
>> >> > <https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2>, releases=true,
>> >> snapshots=false)*
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*]
>> >> >
>> >> > [*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
>> >> >
>> >> > Someone knows the way to solve this?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't know if this is something related to some change in past
>> >> months, or
>> >> > maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things
>> without
>> >> > success.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks in advance for any advice on this
>> >> >
>> >> > Carlos
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Carlos Rovira
>> >> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Carlos Rovira
>> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
I tried building the compiler after deleting the playerglobal part of m2.
It failed on the tests. But you are skipping tests which should be
optional.
I manged to get that working by adding :
<dependency>
<groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId>
<artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId>
<version>${flash.version}</version>
<type>swc</type>
<scope>test</scope>
</dependency>
to the bottom of the royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml
(I put it in test scope which seemed 'right' for me, but I am not a maven
expert!)
I will see what happens with the rest of the build, which is proceeding. I
will try to repro your issue.
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:53 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Greg,
> I tried to copy
>
> m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>
> folder (I have there 11.1, 15.0, 20.0 and 27.0), but the error is the same
>
>
>
> El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 22:26, Carlos Rovira (<carlosrovira@apache.org
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > ok Greg
> >
> > thanks for trying. I'm afraid that others trying Royale for the first
> time
> > find stuck in this kind of error.
> > Finally I'd like to make a video tutorial with something from scratch
> > since people is demanding it
> > So getting things working from 0 would be great to plan that video
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> > El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 21:47, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
> > escribió:
> >
> >> In the past I had issues I think sometimes with missing correct
> >> playerglobal. I recall one time manually installing it in
> >>
> >> .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
> >>
> >> iirc this is something that may not be apparent unless you have a fresh
> >> start with maven.
> >> I will try the same thing later today, and see if I have the same issue.
> >> If
> >> it is that issue, then maybe it can be solved by declaring it in a
> pom.xml
> >> (e.g. for Binding) - I will see if I can figure it out.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:14 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we
> >> could
> >> > have.
> >> > So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
> >> > dependencies
> >> >
> >> > I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
> >> >
> >> > I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
> >> >
> >> > but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
> >> >
> >> > mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
> >> >
> >> > And build failed in Core:
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
> >> >
> >> > Downloading from apache-snapshots:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
> >> >
> >> > Downloading from apache.snapshots:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*]
> >> >
> >>
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
> >> > 0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*]
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ...................
> *SUCCESS*
> >> [
> >> > 1.597 s]
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ...........................
> *SUCCESS*
> >> [
> >> > 0.239 s]
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts ....................
> *SUCCESS*
> >> [
> >> > 3.678 s]
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs .....................
> *SUCCESS*
> >> [
> >> > 0.576 s]
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ...............
> *SUCCESS*
> >> [
> >> > 4.432 s]
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............
> *FAILURE*
> >> [
> >> > 0.663 s]
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........
> *SKIPPED*
> >> >
> >> > The error is
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*]
> >> >
> >>
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*]
> >> >
> >>
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
> >> >
> >> > [*INFO*]
> >> >
> >>
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
> >> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
> >> > *(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
> >> > dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason:
> Missing:*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] *1) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project
> >> website.*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can
> >> deploy
> >> > the file there: *
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
> >> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
> >> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
> >> > -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * 1)
> org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * 2)
> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (
> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/
> >> > <http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/>, releases=false,
> >> > snapshots=true),*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache-release
> >> > (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
> >> > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>,
> >> > releases=true, snapshots=false),*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (
> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots
> >> > <https://repository.apache.org/snapshots>, releases=false,
> >> > snapshots=true),*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] * central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
> >> > <https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2>, releases=true,
> >> snapshots=false)*
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*]
> >> >
> >> > [*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
> >> >
> >> > Someone knows the way to solve this?
> >> >
> >> > I don't know if this is something related to some change in past
> >> months, or
> >> > maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things
> without
> >> > success.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance for any advice on this
> >> >
> >> > Carlos
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Carlos Rovira
> >> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Greg,
I tried to copy
m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
folder (I have there 11.1, 15.0, 20.0 and 27.0), but the error is the same
El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 22:26, Carlos Rovira (<ca...@apache.org>)
escribió:
> ok Greg
>
> thanks for trying. I'm afraid that others trying Royale for the first time
> find stuck in this kind of error.
> Finally I'd like to make a video tutorial with something from scratch
> since people is demanding it
> So getting things working from 0 would be great to plan that video
>
> thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
> El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 21:47, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
>> In the past I had issues I think sometimes with missing correct
>> playerglobal. I recall one time manually installing it in
>>
>> .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>>
>> iirc this is something that may not be apparent unless you have a fresh
>> start with maven.
>> I will try the same thing later today, and see if I have the same issue.
>> If
>> it is that issue, then maybe it can be solved by declaring it in a pom.xml
>> (e.g. for Binding) - I will see if I can figure it out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:14 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we
>> could
>> > have.
>> > So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
>> > dependencies
>> >
>> > I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
>> >
>> > I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
>> >
>> > but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
>> >
>> > mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
>> >
>> > And build failed in Core:
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>> > *(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
>> >
>> > Downloading from apache-snapshots:
>> >
>> >
>> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>> >
>> > Downloading from apache.snapshots:
>> >
>> >
>> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>> >
>> > [*INFO*]
>> >
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
>> > 0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
>> >
>> > [*INFO*]
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ................... *SUCCESS*
>> [
>> > 1.597 s]
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ........................... *SUCCESS*
>> [
>> > 0.239 s]
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts .................... *SUCCESS*
>> [
>> > 3.678 s]
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs ..................... *SUCCESS*
>> [
>> > 0.576 s]
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ............... *SUCCESS*
>> [
>> > 4.432 s]
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............ *FAILURE*
>> [
>> > 0.663 s]
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........ *SKIPPED*
>> >
>> > The error is
>> >
>> > [*INFO*]
>> >
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
>> >
>> > [*INFO*]
>> >
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
>> >
>> > [*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
>> >
>> > [*INFO*]
>> >
>> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
>> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
>> > *(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
>> > dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Missing:*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] *1) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project
>> website.*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
>> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>> > -Dfile=/path/to/file*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can
>> deploy
>> > the file there: *
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
>> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
>> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
>> > -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * 1) org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * 2) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/
>> > <http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/>, releases=false,
>> > snapshots=true),*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * apache-release
>> > (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
>> > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>,
>> > releases=true, snapshots=false),*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (https://repository.apache.org/snapshots
>> > <https://repository.apache.org/snapshots>, releases=false,
>> > snapshots=true),*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] * central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
>> > <https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2>, releases=true,
>> snapshots=false)*
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*]
>> >
>> > [*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
>> >
>> > Someone knows the way to solve this?
>> >
>> > I don't know if this is something related to some change in past
>> months, or
>> > maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things without
>> > success.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for any advice on this
>> >
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
>> >
>> > --
>> > Carlos Rovira
>> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
ok Greg
thanks for trying. I'm afraid that others trying Royale for the first time
find stuck in this kind of error.
Finally I'd like to make a video tutorial with something from scratch since
people is demanding it
So getting things working from 0 would be great to plan that video
thanks
Carlos
El mar., 21 may. 2019 a las 21:47, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
escribió:
> In the past I had issues I think sometimes with missing correct
> playerglobal. I recall one time manually installing it in
>
> .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
>
> iirc this is something that may not be apparent unless you have a fresh
> start with maven.
> I will try the same thing later today, and see if I have the same issue. If
> it is that issue, then maybe it can be solved by declaring it in a pom.xml
> (e.g. for Binding) - I will see if I can figure it out.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:14 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we could
> > have.
> > So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
> > dependencies
> >
> > I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
> >
> > I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
> >
> > but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
> >
> > mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
> >
> > And build failed in Core:
> >
> > [*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
> > *(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
> >
> > Downloading from apache-snapshots:
> >
> >
> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
> >
> > Downloading from apache.snapshots:
> >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
> >
> > [*INFO*]
> >
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > [*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
> > 0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
> >
> > [*INFO*]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ................... *SUCCESS* [
> > 1.597 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ........................... *SUCCESS* [
> > 0.239 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts .................... *SUCCESS* [
> > 3.678 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs ..................... *SUCCESS* [
> > 0.576 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ............... *SUCCESS* [
> > 4.432 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............ *FAILURE* [
> > 0.663 s]
> >
> > [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........ *SKIPPED*
> >
> > The error is
> >
> > [*INFO*]
> >
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > [*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
> >
> > [*INFO*]
> >
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > [*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
> >
> > [*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
> >
> > [*INFO*]
> >
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
> > *(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
> > dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Missing:*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] *1) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project website.*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
> > -Dfile=/path/to/file*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can
> deploy
> > the file there: *
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
> > -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
> > -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
> > -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * 1) org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * 2) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] *----------*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/
> > <http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/>, releases=false,
> > snapshots=true),*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * apache-release
> > (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
> > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>,
> > releases=true, snapshots=false),*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (https://repository.apache.org/snapshots
> > <https://repository.apache.org/snapshots>, releases=false,
> > snapshots=true),*
> >
> > [*ERROR*] * central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
> > <https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2>, releases=true, snapshots=false)*
> >
> > [*ERROR*]
> >
> > [*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
> >
> > Someone knows the way to solve this?
> >
> > I don't know if this is something related to some change in past months,
> or
> > maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things without
> > success.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any advice on this
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: Problems building with Maven from scratch
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
In the past I had issues I think sometimes with missing correct
playerglobal. I recall one time manually installing it in
.m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal
iirc this is something that may not be apparent unless you have a fresh
start with maven.
I will try the same thing later today, and see if I have the same issue. If
it is that issue, then maybe it can be solved by declaring it in a pom.xml
(e.g. for Binding) - I will see if I can figure it out.
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:14 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to build from scratch with maven to see what problems we could
> have.
> So I removed my .m2/repository forcing maven to download again all
> dependencies
>
> I know first time is different and follow this guide [1]
>
> I was able to build compiler and typedefs without problem
>
> but when reach to Royale-asjs, I run:
>
> mvn -s settings-template.xml -DskipTests clean install
>
> And build failed in Core:
>
> [*INFO*] *--- *maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
> *(process-resource-bundles)* @ Binding* ---*
>
> Downloading from apache-snapshots:
>
> http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>
> Downloading from apache.snapshots:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/snapshots/org/apache/royale/framework/Core/0.9.6-SNAPSHOT/Core-0.9.6-SNAPSHOT-swf.swc
>
> [*INFO*]
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> [*INFO*] *Reactor Summary for Apache Royale: Framework: Parent
> 0.9.6-SNAPSHOT:*
>
> [*INFO*]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Parent ................... *SUCCESS* [
> 1.597 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework ........................... *SUCCESS* [
> 0.239 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Fonts .................... *SUCCESS* [
> 3.678 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs ..................... *SUCCESS* [
> 0.576 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Core ............... *SUCCESS* [
> 4.432 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Binding ............ *FAILURE* [
> 0.663 s]
>
> [*INFO*] Apache Royale: Framework: Libs: Collections ........ *SKIPPED*
>
> The error is
>
> [*INFO*]
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> [*INFO*] *BUILD FAILURE*
>
> [*INFO*]
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> [*INFO*] Total time: 12.124 s
>
> [*INFO*] Finished at: 2019-05-21T21:07:04+02:00
>
> [*INFO*]
> *------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>
> [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-remote-resources-plugin:1.5:process
> *(process-resource-bundles)* on project Binding: *Failed to resolve
> dependencies for one or more projects in the reactor. Reason: Missing:*
>
> [*ERROR*] *----------*
>
> [*ERROR*] *1) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] * Try downloading the file manually from the project website.*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] * Then, install it using the command: *
>
> [*ERROR*] * mvn install:install-file
> -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
> -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
> -Dfile=/path/to/file*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] * Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy
> the file there: *
>
> [*ERROR*] * mvn deploy:deploy-file
> -DgroupId=org.apache.royale.framework -DartifactId=Core
> -Dversion=0.9.6-SNAPSHOT -Dclassifier=swf -Dpackaging=swc
> -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id]*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] * Path to dependency: *
>
> [*ERROR*] * 1) org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>
> [*ERROR*] * 2) org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:swf:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] *----------*
>
> [*ERROR*] *1 required artifact is missing.*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] *for artifact: *
>
> [*ERROR*] * org.apache.royale.framework:Binding:swc:0.9.6-SNAPSHOT*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] *from the specified remote repositories:*
>
> [*ERROR*] * apache-snapshots (http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/
> <http://repository.apache.org/snapshots/>, releases=false,
> snapshots=true),*
>
> [*ERROR*] * apache-release
> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>,
> releases=true, snapshots=false),*
>
> [*ERROR*] * apache.snapshots (https://repository.apache.org/snapshots
> <https://repository.apache.org/snapshots>, releases=false,
> snapshots=true),*
>
> [*ERROR*] * central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2
> <https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2>, releases=true, snapshots=false)*
>
> [*ERROR*]
>
> [*ERROR*] -> *[Help 1]*
>
> Someone knows the way to solve this?
>
> I don't know if this is something related to some change in past months, or
> maybe I'm doing something wrong, but was trying multiple things without
> success.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice on this
>
> Carlos
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>