On 7/31/15, 12:03 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> If someone wants to make these changes, I won’t object, but IMO, Google >> Closure Library changes often, usually for the better. Bundling will >>tie >> a FlexJS release to a particular version of GCL and that may not always >>be >> desirable at this point. > > >From what I have seen, GCL is used behind the scenes by the FlexJS >compiler, i.e. there is no way for the user to do anything directly with >GCL. I am not sure what advantage we get by getting the latest GCL >library >all the time. I don’t think we are using a lot of GCL code, but it appears that when we upgrade GCC versions we often need a newer GCL and vice-versa otherwise we get warnings and stuff. And with the JS.swc, I think folks will be able to write directly against GCL if they want to. > >I believe tying a FlexJS release to a particular version of GCL is a good >thing. It will be. Not so sure right now. Or we want to do it in a way that makes it possible for folks to upgrade/downgrade their version of GCL. And even better, have the devs always get the latest, but bundle one or point to one in the installer scripts. > > >> I believe we have the option of changing the >> installer so it downloads GCL without asking for license approval as >>well. >> >> >That does not solve the problem of the FlexJS installation failing. The >GCL download step can still fail, which seems to be happening a lot. Yeah, I’m tempted to file a GitHub issue in that project asking for releases so we can offer more stability. If they keep up changing the head every few days like they have been it will become a time-saver to bundle or point to a stable version. If you want to do the work, I certainly won’t stand in the way. -Alex
