Yes I do ... I did a lot of „networking“ with the maven guys in Seville. It
seems that I managed to get the point I didn’t seem to manage via emails.
Currently I am using different sets of libaries based upon classifiers, but
that’s just a temporary hack. I am hoping that I will be able to make Maven
more polyglot in the near future and then we will probably have a complete new
world of possibilities ;-)
Chris
Am 05.12.16, 17:07 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>:
Thanks Chris, that's helpful. Do you have any thoughts on how to manage
two different sets of libraries, one for SWF compile, one for JS compile?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 12/5/16, 12:44 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>sorry for not responding on that last email ☹... must have missed that
>one ☹
>
>For the general functionality of the flex-tool-groups, I simply use the
>basic Java service registry functionality.
>This allows to lookup a list of instances with a symbolic name. You can
>add more implementations to the list, by providing a jar with a simple
>text file named: “META-INF/services/org.apache.flex.tools.FlexToolGroup”.
>This file only contains class names. Each row will be treated as an
>alternate implementation.
>So if I want to get all “tool-groups”, all I have to do, is to ask the
>Service registry to give me all “org.apache.flex.tools.FlexToolGroup”.
>In my case I made sure I defined a universal interface that all
>implementations would implement, so I know that I can simply cast each
>instance I get back to that base interface.
>In my case in order to add a new compiler called “foo”, all I would do,
>is to add a jar with a class implementing FlexToolGroup and to make
>“getName” return “foo”.
>
>Currently I would have to extend the Enum JSOutputType to support “foo”,
>which doesn’t make it that extensible.
>
>Right now I have a template for each type of compilation and a matching
>“Mojo”. All compiler options go into the configuration file for that
>particular Mojo. Additionally, the Mojo is able to customize the default
>values used to generate the template. For example, the getDefines method
>returns different values for CompileASMojo and for CompileJSMojo.
>
>All I have to do then, is to provide the template path to the compiler
>using the default “execute” method of any of the “FlexTool”
>implementations and simply provide an array of Strings which equals the
>normal array of Strings the compiler gets in the Ant world.
>
>Hope that explains things a little more.
>
>Chris
>
>
>Am 02.12.16, 19:13 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>:
>
> I'm about to start working on this. I haven't actually tried anything
> yet, but my thinking is that there are some interesting issues
>regarding
> configuration. Typically, when compiling an application, you define a
> bunch of compiler options, but for a compilation that should produce
>two
> different outputs, you might need two different sets of compiler
>options.
> How should that be managed?
>
> For example, you might want a different library-path for the SWF
>compile
> vs the JS compile. Or set COMPILE::SWF=true for the SWF build and
> COMPILE::SWF=false for the JS compile.
>
> One possibility is that all platform-specific options have to be
>specified
> in -config.xml files and not on the command line. Then for any
> -load-config option, the JS compile will look for a js-prefixed file.
> So
> instead of using compile-as-config.xml and compile-js-config.xml, we
>would
> use compile-config.xml and js-compile-config.mxml and you would
>specify
> -load-config=compile-config.xml as the compiler option.
>
> Another possibility is that the SWF compile would always set
> COMPILE::SWF=true and COMPILE::JS=false and the JS compile would do
>the
> opposite. The JS compile would see if -js-library-path was specified
>and
> if not, use the -library-path. The weird thing about this approach is
> that the SWF compiler needs to support a -js-library-path option
>otherwise
> the SWF compiler's configuration checker will throw an error. Adding
> options that the SWF compiler must ignore doesn't seem right to me.
>
> Any other ideas? Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
>
> On 10/7/16, 8:09 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't know enough about how Flex Tool Groups work to form an
>opinion.
> >Can you provide more details and explain how folks would configure
>things
> >on the command-line?
> >
> >AIUI, -js-output-type is sort of overloaded right now, because the
> >FLEXJS_DUAL dictates the output of a SWF. In my plan to combine
>things, I
> >would introduce a new configuration parameter like -output-type or
> >-targets or something like that. I supposed it could be a list of
> >compiler jars to run. But -js-output-type doesn't currently go
>through
> >different jars for JSC, NODE, and FLEXJS. That parameter just sets
>up a
> >few configuration changes within the output classes.
> >
> >I'm pretty sure Schmalle imagined a true plug-in architecture for the
> >emitters as well. Not sure we want to take all of that on right
>now, but
> >we might want to consider that as well.
> >
> >-Alex
> >
> >On 10/7/16, 12:14 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
>wrote:
> >
> >>I would like to propose a different approach:
> >>
> >>
> >>Unless these approaches led to a dead end and there is no solution
>down
> >>that path, I would rather suggest to refactor the compiler to allow
> >>dynamic adding of alternate compilers. Currently the supported
>compilers
> >>are limited by the JsOutputType enum. If we however used something
>like
> >>the Java service thing I used for the Flex Tool Groups, we could
>allow
> >>new experiments to start in dedicated Jars and we wouldn't have
>such a
> >>mixture in case someone wants to try something out.
> >>
> >>
> >>Chris
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >>Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
> >>Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Oktober 2016 00:25:30
> >>An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >>Betreff: Re: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re: AW:
> >>[FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order)
> >>
> >>+1. Bonus points for making a tag and/or branch before deleting.
> >>
> >>-Alex
> >>
> >>On 10/6/16, 3:02 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Makes sense to me. I say we simply delete it. No need to transfer
>to
> >>>another folder. It'll still be in the repository's history.
> >>>
> >>>- Josh
> >>>
> >>>On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Carlos Rovira
> >>><carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I want to propose the same. I something was an experiment and is
>no
> >>>>more
> >>>> developed. I think it should go to some folder that make people
>avoid
> >>>> confusion about what code is valid and what is left behind.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-10-06 23:12 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz
> >>>><christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:
> >>>>
> >>>> > I stumble over tons of VF2JS classes and think it would be
>better to
> >>>>move
> >>>> > stuf like that to some sort of attic. What do you think?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Chris
> >>>> >
> >>>> > ________________________________
> >>>> > Von: Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
> >>>> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 17:13:49
> >>>> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >>>> > Betreff: Re: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was
>Re: AW:
> >>>> > [FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order)
> >>>> >
> >>>> > JSC is meant to be purely an ActionScript to JavaScript
>transpiler
> >>>> without
> >>>> > any frameworks. By default, it doesn't export an HTML file,
>but it
> >>>>will
> >>>> > optionally support custom HTML templates in 0.8.0. It is
>exposed
> >>>>through
> >>>> > the js/bin/asjsc executable, where it loads the
> >>>>frameworks/js-config.xml
> >>>> > configuration. js-config.xml references js.swc to give
>ActionScript
> >>>> access
> >>>> > to browser APIs.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > NODE generates an index.js that bootstraps things for Node.js.
>It is
> >>>> > exposed through the js/bin/asnodec executable, which it loads
>the
> >>>> > frameworks/node-config.xml configuration. In addition to
>js.swc,
> >>>> > node-config.xml references node.swc to give ActionScript
>access to
> >>>> Node.js
> >>>> > APIs.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > As far as I know, AMD and VF2JS are no longer maintained. I
>assume
> >>>>AMD
> >>>> > tried to output AMD modules instead of goog modules. I
>remember Alex
> >>>>or
> >>>> > someone mentioning that VF2JS had something to do with the
>original
> >>>>Flex
> >>>> > framework, but I don't know the details.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > - Josh
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Christofer Dutz <
> >>>> > christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > > Hi Alex,
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > yesterday I stumbled over this flexjs-dual output type while
> >>>>looking
> >>>> for
> >>>> > > the correct settings to buid a pure JS app. Would it be
>possible
> >>>>for
> >>>> you
> >>>> > > guys to give a short summary of what the different output
>types
> >>>> actually
> >>>> > > are? The enum doesn't contain any documentation on this and I
> >>>>guess
> >>>> this
> >>>> > > would be really helpful.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > So far I see these output types:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > AMD
> >>>> > > FLEXJS
> >>>> > > GOOG
> >>>> > > VF2JS
> >>>> > > FLEXJS_DUAL
> >>>> > > JSC
> >>>> > > NODE
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > And I guess I only used no value and FLEXJS
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Chris
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > ________________________________
> >>>> > > Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
> >>>> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:45:48
> >>>> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >>>> > > Betreff: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re:
>AW:
> >>>> > > [FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order)
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Fred Thomas did some work in this area about a year ago. In
>the
> >>>> > > flex-oem-compiler module that FB (and maybe other IDEs) use
>to
> >>>>talk
> >>>>to
> >>>> > the
> >>>> > > compiler, he added a FLEXJS_DUAL -js-output-type. Not sure
>how
> >>>>well it
> >>>> > > works.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Thinking about this some more we'd have to have the same
> >>>>configuration
> >>>> > > options available to both compilers which might be a bit
>strange.
> >>>>Or
> >>>> > > maybe we can convince the compilers to not complain about
>unknown
> >>>> config
> >>>> > > parameters.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > We'd have to decide on how to reset the library-path for each
> >>>>compile.
> >>>> > > The JS compile might use different SWCs than the SWF compile.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > We'd have to select a few conditional compile options that
>would
> >>>>be
> >>>> > > different for each compiler. For example, COMPILE::SWF
>would be
> >>>>true
> >>>> for
> >>>> > > SWF compiling and false for JS compiling and vice versa, and
>maybe
> >>>> > finding
> >>>> > > those params on the command-line would have no effect since
>they
> >>>>would
> >>>> be
> >>>> > > dictated by the compiler.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Thoughts?
> >>>> > > -Alex
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > On 10/2/16, 1:45 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > >That would be ideal!
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >- Josh
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >On Oct 1, 2016 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>
>wrote:
> >>>> > > >
> >>>> > > >> One more thought on this: now that COMPJSC can more or
>less
> >>>>build
> >>>> its
> >>>> > > >>own
> >>>> > > >> output instead of relying on COMPC to package its pile of
>.js
> >>>>files,
> >>>> > it
> >>>> > > >> might be worth experimenting with combining Falcon and
>FalconJX
> >>>>so
> >>>> > COMPC
> >>>> > > >> can produce a SWC or a SWC with JS files based on some
> >>>>configuration
> >>>> > > >> parameter. Then there would only be one compiler that
>produces
> >>>>SWFs
> >>>> > or
> >>>> > > >>JS
> >>>> > > >> based on some -output-type flag.
> >>>> > > >>
> >>>> > > >> Thoughts?
> >>>> > > >> -Alex
> >>>> > > >>
> >>>> > > >> On 10/1/16, 10:18 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>
>wrote:
> >>>> > > >>
> >>>> > > >> >Hi Chris,
> >>>> > > >> >
> >>>> > > >> >When I read this, I realized I already pushed the
>changes when
> >>>>I
> >>>> > pushed
> >>>> > > >> >some other changes yesterday. If the Maven build didn't
>blow
> >>>>up,
> >>>> it
> >>>> > is
> >>>> > > >> >probably because it is using its own
>compile-xx-config.xml
> >>>>files so
> >>>> > is
> >>>> > > >> >still generating a pile of .js files and packaging them
>up on
> >>>>the
> >>>> SWF
> >>>> > > >> >COMPC run.
> >>>> > > >> >
> >>>> > > >> >-Alex
> >>>> > > >> >
> >>>> > > >> >On 10/1/16, 6:10 AM, "Christofer Dutz"
> >>>><christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> >>>> > > >>wrote:
> >>>> > > >> >
> >>>> > > >> >>Hi Alex,
> >>>> > > >> >>
> >>>> > > >> >>
> >>>> > > >> >>so I guess ideally this change should be done on a
>feature
> >>>>branch,
> >>>> > so
> >>>> > > >>I
> >>>> > > >> >>can sort out the Maven issues and we'll merge that back
>as
> >>>>soon as
> >>>> > > >>all is
> >>>> > > >> >>working. I would like to ask you to create a
> >>>> > > >>"feature-autobuild/"-branch
> >>>> > > >> >>for that. Just give me a short note what branch the
>stuff is
> >>>>in
> >>>> and
> >>>> > > >>I'll
> >>>> > > >> >>try to sort out the Maven issues.
> >>>> > > >> >>
> >>>> > > >> >>
> >>>> > > >> >>Chris
> >>>> > > >> >
> >>>> > > >>
> >>>> > > >>
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>> Director General
> >>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >>>> http://www.avant2.es
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> >>>>contener
> >>>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
>mensaje
> >>>>por
> >>>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta
>misma
> >>>>vía y
> >>>> proceda a su destrucción.
> >>>>
> >>>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> >>>>comunicamos
> >>>> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> >>>>CODEOSCOPIC
> >>>> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
>prestación del
> >>>> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de
>acceso,
> >>>> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose
>a
> >>>>nuestras
> >>>> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> >>>>documentación
> >>>> necesaria.
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
