Should I launch : ant -f installer.xml after unzipping n a folder ? Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine----- > De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 22:55 > À : dev@royale.apache.org > Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds > > Good Luck! :) > > Piotr > > 2017-10-04 22:53 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon > <ngra...@idylog.com>: > > > 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:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com] > > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 octobre 2017 20:59 À : dev@royale.apache.org; > > > ngra...@idylog.com 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 > > > <ngra...@idylog.com>: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > > 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
