Hi,

I will make a new thread for the current problem of spriteflexjs library
compilation since this is not in topic

2017-02-15 23:51 GMT+01:00 Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:

> Well the “type” is what we choose … also we can change the “classifier”s …
> the scope however is Maven-defined and we currently have to stick to that.
> But I’m happy to change naming, if that makes things easier.
>
> Chris
>
> Am 15.02.17, 23:48 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>:
>
>
>
>     On 2/15/17, 1:09 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
>     >Ok … gee … think I still haven’t understood this completely ☹
>
>     Yeah, it is a bit tricky.  I've been wondering whether the terms we
>     currently use "typedefs", "externs", "runtime", "provided" are Maven
>     standards or whether we can change some of them.
>
>     In the dual branch, I am currently changing things so the Core.swc and
>     CoreJS.swc are more like peers.  They both contain .JS files, but the
>     library.swf in Core is for SWF and the library.swf in CoreJS is for
> JS.  I
>     just want to get this working now, cut a release, then look into
> packing
>     everything into one SWC.
>
>     In light of that, my latest attempt to make categories for SWCs says
> that
>     there are categories like:
>
>     1) External "Platform and JS Framework API" swcs.
>     Playerglobal
>     Airglobal
>     Js
>     Jquery
>     Createjs
>     Most of the flex-typedefs except for GCL.
>
>     2) External "JS Framework SWCs with SWF Mocks"
>     We don't have any in the main repos but in flex-tourjs the
> BarcodeScanner
>     makes a SWC like this.
>
>     3) Google Closure Library External SWCs
>     GCL.swc
>     Someday, some others.
>
>     4) SWF SWCs
>     Core
>     Binding
>     Etc.
>
>     5) JS SWCs
>     CoreJS
>     BindingJS
>     Etc.
>
>     Bucket 1 always goes on the external-library-path for SWF and JS.
>     Different ones are used for JS vs SWF.
>     Bucket 2 goes on the external-library-path for JS, but on the
> library-path
>     for SWF
>     Bucket 3 goes on the library-path for JS and is not used for SWF
> unless it
>     has a SWF Mock
>     Bucket 4 goes on the external-library-path for SWC
>     Bucket 4 goes on the library-path for SWF
>     Bucket 5 goes on the library-path for cross-compiling to JS
>     Bucket 5 goes on the external-library-path for building the library.swf
>     for a JS.swc although it is probably ok if it is on the library-path.
>
>     From another perspective, the JS within a SWC either uses goog.require
> or
>     not.  GCL.swc uses goog.require, as will other GCL-compatible code,
> and as
>     our JS files do.  That's why they go on the library-path for JS.  But
> when
>     building a SWF, you either want the code from a SWC's library.swf in
> your
>     application so you use library-path or you don't and you use
>     -external-library-path.
>
>     This makes me think we need an easier-to-understand way to mark what
> is in
>     a SWC and have the Mojo figure it out from there.  I think we are
>     currently using
>     Typedefs + runtime to mean that it is meant for JS but doesn't use
>     goog.require
>     Typedefs by itself means that is meant for JS and uses goog.require
>     Provided and Runtime seem to have the same meaning?
>     If no typedefs it contains runnable ABC
>     If no typedefs but provided it is bucket 1 for SWF.
>
>     I think we just want to mark whether a SWC contains JS and/or runnable
> ABC
>     and whether it contains goog.require or not.  I'm not sure we have a
>     combination right now for bucket 2, and the keywords might not have
> enough
>     meaning to others.  Can we use different keywords?  Classifiers like
> "JS",
>     "ABC", "JS+ABC", Scope of "usesGoog"?
>
>     Thanks,
>     -Alex
>
>
>
>


-- 

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.

Reply via email to