Hi, I like Alex's idea and I don't see any problem if we will have clear information on our website what is for what is not for. I actually was waiting for some package which is small and free from Flash Player - and here we go!
I have to admit since I did start using FlexJS I haven't touch SWF part at all. If user come to the website and see Royale project, than go to download page and will have nice description - We will not lost. We need to remember only about possibility to switch - If I'm using " apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip" I should be able to switch " apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip". It is only delivery - examples, tutorials etc. will not point to any specific package, unless it is JS only like MDL examples. Piotr 2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>: > 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, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" > <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > 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 <e...@ixsoftware.nl>: > > > >> 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. > > -- Piotr Zarzycki mobile: +48 880 859 557 skype: zarzycki10 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki <https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552> GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21
