All of this is perfectly true. Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine----- > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la > part de Carlos Rovira > Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2017 20:15 > À : [email protected] > Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names > > We must think in users as people doesn't know anythings about us. As > well people writing articles about us, will want to check quickly what > we do, and we need to be simple and fast. > So for me, if I use for example NPM, the last proposal is the correct > one: > > npm install royale -g > > If people that land in Royale, see lots of combinations we'll be dead > before having the opportunity for that people to reach the great > features we can provide > > So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people > outside our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech. > > I must to say that we always can change this to something more complex > in the future as we get people demanding it, but I'd prefer not to do > this at this stage since I'm afraid to lost people due to excessive > options, packages and bundles. > > > > > 2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > > > I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread. > > > > Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps. After getting > the > > packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit. I > > actually think I agree with Carlos and Erik. > > > > I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on > > the Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel. We will > > only post one source artifact because the build script can generate > > both bundles based on environment variables. We will also post > dozens > > of Jars and SWCs to Maven Central. And I think we will have an NPM > distribution as well. > > For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also > > assume we are providing a .tar.gz file as well. > > > > Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a > vote > > on a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z". The source artifact will > > be > > called: > > > > apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip > > > > We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users. They will be > called: > > > > apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires > > prerequisites) > > > > And: > > > > apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is) > > > > If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still > only > > have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact > > would be called. > > > > apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip > > > > I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names. > > We could call the "flexjs" artifact: > > > > > > apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip > > > > But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name > > somewhere. > > > > Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group > id: > > > > org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars) > > org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs) > > org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs) > > > > Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids: > > > > org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler > > org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs > > org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework > > > > So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing > > that we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products > > primarily differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there > might > > be a different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick > > their "product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or > > what SWCs they depend on. > > > > > > Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target > platform. > > For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven > Central: > > > > > > > > Basic-0.8.0-js.swc > > Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc > > > > I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use > > a classifier for WebASM some day as in: > > > > Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc > > > > Last is NPM. I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be > > wrong. But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by > doing: > > > > > > npm install flexjs -g > > > > > > If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed > > apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called > > royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type: > > > > > > npm install royale-flexjs -g > > > > And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of > > apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via: > > > > > > npm install royale-js -g > > > > But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just > > unzip apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it. Not sure if we need > > to make something available just by typing: > > > > > > npm install royale -g > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Alex > > > > > > On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos > Rovira" > > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product > > >names) > > >and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale. > > >As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to > > >dictate if we want to target one or more outputs. > > >So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that > > >could output JS, WASM, SWF, ....) > > > > > >People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their > > >solutions Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will > come > > >to read about Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We > > >don't want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that > > >could make them not choose us for something is not relevant to us. > > > > > >So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove > > >"JS", we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside > > > > > >That's my 2ctn > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > >Carlos > > > > > > > > >2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the > 'packaging' > > >> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the > > >>naming of the product(s) of this project. > > >> > > >> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I > think > > >>is an excellent suggestion: > > >> > > >> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two > > >> IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks migrating > > >> from Apache Flex and another for folks not interested in SWF. In > > >> the packaging branch I have most of that working. > > >> > > >> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the > > >>other one Royale or RoyaleJS. The latter is considered by some > > >>folks to mean "Royale for JS". The package names would be > > >>apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and maybe > > >>apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would definitely > > >>be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target > > >>markets." > > >> > > >> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the > > >> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well. > > >> > > >> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple > > >>product (e.g. > > >> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should > > >>name the current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly > > >>confusing to have a product with the same name as the project and > > >>then have other products from the same project with totally > > >>different names. I suggest we come up with a naming convention > that > > >>will reflect the functionality of the various products and their > > >>link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head, just to show > > >>what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc. > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> EdB > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Ix Multimedia Software > > >> > > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 > > >> 3521 VB Utrecht > > >> > > >> T. 06-51952295 > > >> I. > > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > www.ixsoftware.nl&data > > >>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f% > > 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1 > > >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata= > > nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u > > >>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo > > >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f > > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b > > >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456& > > sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo > > >yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > >Carlos Rovira > > > > > >Director General > > > > > >M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > > > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos > > >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f > > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3 > > >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456& > > sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy > > >L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! > > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e > > >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f > > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a > > >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456& > > sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg > > >4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > -- > > <http://www.codeoscopic.com> > > Carlos Rovira > > Director General > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > http://www.codeoscopic.com > > > Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video> > > > 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.
