If I could get a zip to just try it, I am all for this. On the plus side, if you can get a zip only for windows and documented setup for quick testing, I think this goes a long way with being able to develop the compiler and develop the ui framework separation a lot cleaner.
Getting stuff ripped away from the Flash player and Adobe in a new project is #1. Plus the lightweight nature of not having to download the AIR SDK for dev and just js. @Om what would be the difference between npm and a zip? Mike On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Since you fake airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc maybe it will also work > with Moonshine. I will try to do same operation as you did and see whether > I will not have previous errors. > > Thanks! > Piotr > > 2017-09-07 18:43 GMT+02:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>: > > > This is a big big deal. Thanks for getting this done. > > > > I would be very interested in the non-installer, simple zip file > download. > > > > I dont care much for Ant as a requirement, I would rather continue > > maintaining the npm FlexJS package for AIR download + setup. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > Yesterday, I was able to manually create a folder of files that > contained > > > no Adobe AIR or Adobe Flash files and still was an acceptable > Flex/FlexJS > > > SDK for Adobe Flash Builder and allowed me to compile > DataBindingExample > > > for JSFlex output only (it did not build a SWF). > > > > > > This is interesting because it could significantly change the way we > > > package FlexJS releases. We could have a default package that is a > > > ready-to-use zip of this folder of files. Then the Installer is no > > longer > > > needed if your goal is just to install FlexJS, fire up an IDE, and see > > how > > > it works in the browser without Flash and you don't need to see how it > > > looks in Flash. > > > > > > If this sound good to folks, I will try to alter the Ant build scripts > to > > > produce such a package (maybe some other volunteer can take on doing > this > > > in Maven). In case you are wondering, what I did was fake some of the > > > Adobe files that Flash Builder looks for by making copies of some > Apache > > > files. For example, I copied the js.swc that contains the Object > > > definition for the browser to be airglobal.swc and playerglobal.swc. > So > > > far, it appears that Flash Builder is only checking for existence of > > > files, not actual classes in these files. But we might hit some bug > > later > > > as we test this further. > > > > > > Then the next question is, what do folks do who want to get SWF output? > > > We could try to write a script for the Installer that downloads the AIR > > > and Flash SDK and puts them in the right places in the SDK folder but > it > > > will run into the same memory limits that is currently a problem for > the > > > Installer. We could write a new AIR app that brings down the AIR and > > > Flash SDKs. We could provide Ant scripts that download and deploy the > > > Adobe bits. I think we already have bash scripts that do this. Not > sure > > > if folks on Windows will be happy with that or not. > > > > > > Using Ant has the advantage that it works on Windows, Mac and Linux. > > Bash > > > scripts require a shell on Windows. I believe AIR apps have issues on > > > Linux. > > > > > > We could try to teach the compiler to look for and expand the AIR SDK > if > > > it finds that someone specified SWF output but the AIR SDK is not > found. > > > It would look in Downloads folders for the most recent AIR SDK package > > > name. So folks who want SWF output go to the Adobe site, download an > AIR > > > SDK and then run the compiler. > > > > > > This does make SWF output somewhat "second class" and I still believe > > that > > > folks who want strong-typing and will be using modules will benefit > from > > > at least testing in a Flash/AIR runtime, but I think it makes the > > releases > > > truly appear independent from Adobe. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > mobile: +48 880 859 557 > skype: zarzycki10 > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552> >
