I am not very familiar with the use of "nightly builds". Could you please confirm that I got it right ?
1 All that is needed is hosted at http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/ 2 Get the build from the "royale-asjs-jsonly" folder 2.1 since I do not want to build from source, I should get the -bin.zip file 3 Create a folder and unzip the archive in that folder (as I did for the last release 0.8) 4 In the IDE (VSCode, in my case), point to the said folder (modify the asconfig file) Is this the correct way ? Is there anything else that I should also get from the apacheflexbuild site ? (compiler ?...) Thank you, Nicolas Granon > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 15:37 > À : dev@royale.apache.org > Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name > > 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.
