Would it be somehow possible to make the swcs self-contained?
Right now they contain catalog.xml and library.swf … couldn’t this contain
something like a “catalog-js.xml” and a “library-js.swf” … this way we could
just add a dependency to a SWC and the compiler could internally grab what he
needs. This would the the option which I would prefer most … sort of
1000000000+ ;-)
Chris
Am 02.02.17, 10:27 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
So there would be two different lib folders? One for swf compilation and
another for js compilation? Maybe a third lib folder for “dual” compilation?
Here’s a thought: Would it be possible to create a “dual” swc which would
contain the definitions for both JS and SWF? And have falcon understand how to
read the correct one depending on the output?
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:05 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/1/17, 1:41 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> One question: How do you envision swc for third party libraries if both
>> JS and SWF swcs are being used?
>>
>> Is this strictly an SDK thing or would there be some mechanism for having
>> split swcs for libs as well?
>
> I think third-parties will also have to distribute two SWCs if there are
> differences in the API surfaces. If you have a high-level library that
> just talks to downstream libraries and has no COMPILE:: blocks you
> probably only need the one SWC.
>
> Is this an ok thing to do to our customers?
>
> -Alex
>
