Nicolas, Validators are in branch feature/validation [1]. Nightly build is using branch "develop", once someone finish work on validation it will be probably merged to develop. - There is also option that you can yourself build SDK and try it out.
As for your problems - if build produce correct JS output, I suggest raise issue in Josh's repository in case those missing playerglobal. Did you check this instruction [2] ? [1] https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/tree/feature/validation [2] https://github.com/BowlerHatLLC/vscode-nextgenas/wiki/Build-an-ActionScript-project-in-Visual-Studio-Code Piotr 2017-10-05 17:15 GMT+02:00 Idylog - Nicolas Granon <ngra...@idylog.com>: > 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 > > -- 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
