There was a mistake in my previous message : The path to the SDK is in
settings.json, of course, not asconfig.json (working with VSCode).
Well, I have changed the "nextgenas.sdk.framework" value (in settings.json) to
point to the correct folder.
Relaunched a build (with -targets JSFlex only).
I have the following errors in the "problems" panel.
The errors are cause by "flex-config.xml"
(the path to flex-config.xml is correct and I did not change anything inside it)
Errors showing in "problems" panel :
Configuration variable compiler.fxg-base-class unknown
Cannot open (path to install
folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7\playerglobal.swc
Cannot open (path to install folder)\frameworks\{playerglobalHome}\11.7
However, the "terminal" panel says that the project was successfully compiled
and optimized.
And in fact, the js-debug folder content seems correct.
It seems that the build task is looking for playerglobal, although maybe it
does not need it ???
Maybe same problem for the "compiler.fxg-base-class" error ?
When using SDK 0.8.0 there are no problems in the "problems" panel, but when I
installed SDK 0.8.0, I launched the "installer.xml" ant task after unzipping
the bin archive.
Also, there is something that I do not understand : I was expecting to find the
current version of Validator somewhere but I cannot find it (testing Validator
was the reason for grabbing nightly build).
I downloaded "apache-flex-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.zip". Is this the latest nightly
build ?
Did I miss something ?
Another question : in the "tasks", I have an entry for "build-debug" but
nothing for "build-release" ????? How do you launch a build-release task ?
Should I create it myself ? What keys and values should be there ?
Nicolas Granon
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Piotr Zarzycki [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : jeudi 5 octobre 2017 13:20
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [Royale] Using nightly builds
>
> I think that version of JS Only SDK was tested with Flash Builder and
> Moonshine IDE, but I'm not sure whether anyone is tried it to with
> VSCode.
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-10-05 13:17 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Actually not. I think you should be able use those version without
> any
> > additional steps.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
> > 2017-10-05 13:11 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon
> <ngra...@idylog.com>:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > mobile: +48 880 859 557 <+48%20880%20859%20557>
> > 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
