Makes sense to me. But I do think that we probably want different release packages.
For someone who only cares about JS compatible components, they have no need to install anything Flash related. For someone only interested in outputting pure JS and don’t need components at all, they wouldn’t need much more than the compiler and some typedef swcs. Different packages should probably have different compiler defaults. The different release packages might have different names. > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Mark Kessler <kesslerconsult...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
