Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and skip the JS part?
-Mark K On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira <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. www.ixsoftware.nl >> > > > > -- > > <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.
