On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>wrote:
> > The FP SDK is just playerglobal.swc. It is a single file so if there was > a pom.xml next to it, would that be sufficient? > > Thanks for make me recall again :-) yes, you're right it could be enough. > > > AIR is a compressed tree of files. There is an issue about the fact that > the runtime is bundled, but otherwise, is there a capability in Maven to > deal with compressed files that don't have the subfolders also populated > with pom.xml and other files? If not, what is the minimum set of changes > we'd have to make to get an AIR SDK on the download server to work with > Maven (skipping over the license acceptance issue for now). > > Not sure and surely not easily otherwise all those subtrees [1] > > The artifact is the AIR SDK as a zip file, isnt it? Should a pom file associated with this zip file be sufficient? Om > -Fred > > [1] > > http://apacheflexvm.cloudapp.net/artifactory/simple/ext-release-local/com/ad > obe/air/ > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] > Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre 2013 22:46 > À : dev@flex.apache.org > Objet : Re: License Stuff > > Like I said, I don't know much about Maven. > > IIRC, there was some thinking that, because the FP and AIR SDKs are the > "leaf" of a dependency tree, there wasn't much more than a pom.xml needed. > I believe I even looked at a few files on some Maven repo and that seemed > to be the only major difference. Have we since decided differently? > > But let's also separate out FP, from AIR. > > The FP SDK is just playerglobal.swc. It is a single file so if there was a > pom.xml next to it, would that be sufficient? Would it be worth it if we > only made non-AIR apps work well with Maven? > > AIR is a compressed tree of files. There is an issue about the fact that > the runtime is bundled, but otherwise, is there a capability in Maven to > deal with compressed files that don't have the subfolders also populated > with pom.xml and other files? If not, what is the minimum set of changes > we'd have to make to get an AIR SDK on the download server to work with > Maven (skipping over the license acceptance issue for now). > > -Alex > > On 10/29/13 2:37 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >I can't see how 1 or more pom.xml on their server could help Alex, we > >need artifacts and classifiers along with the project descriptor, I > >mean trees entire mavenized SDKs. did I miss or forgot something again > >:-) ? > > > >-Fred > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre > >2013 22:32 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff > > > >Adobe did not want to deal with registration or a way to avoid the > >license dialog, but I'm pretty sure we got permission to put up pom.xml > >files on the current downloads server. > > > >On 10/29/13 2:29 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>IIRC Adobe didn't want to invest in a server just for that. > >> > >>-Fred > >> > >>-----Message d'origine----- > >>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre > >>2013 22:20 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff > >> > >> > >> > >>On 10/29/13 2:14 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>Also, I can retrieve it at the moment but when I read the specific > >>>Air license terms, I understood it couldn't be distributed in piece > >>>but only in only one full and original distribution. > >>Yes, that's probably true, and the runtimes are part of the SDK. I > >>don't think they make a distribution without the runtimes. > >> > >>Just to be sure, we once talked about Adobe putting pom.xml files on > >>its downloads server. Have we decided that is insufficient and a > >>distribution agreement is better? Either way, there is some sort of a > >>license acceptance requirement unless we can get an exemption. > >> > >>-Alex > >> > > > >
