No problem. I just did want to check that I had a correct understanding *before* I begin ! Thanks a lot
Nicolas Granon > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 > À : [email protected]; [email protected] > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds > > Hi Nicolas, > > I believe it is enough. Did you experience some problems ? Of course > since this is JS only you need to have in your compiler config setup - > targets= JSFlex. > > Piotr > > 2017-10-04 19:41 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon > <[email protected]>: > > > 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:[email protected]] Envoyé : mercredi 4 > > > octobre 2017 15:37 À : [email protected] 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 > > > <[email protected]> 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 > > > > <[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. 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. > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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
