IMO, if we are ok having files with the name 'flex' in it, why bother
duplicating the information in a 'royale' file? VSCode and Moonshine are
under active development and could change (and maybe want to).
An alternative would be to have one or two scripts that transform a Royale
SDK to make it compatible with older Flex IDEs. I think we're going to
need one anyway for Flash Builder. Yes, those script names might have
'flex' in the name (ConvertToFlexSDK.xml) but it makes it appear more like
a backward compatibility thing than a "we currently use flex" thing.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 10/16/17, 4:13 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1 for having both. The same could be with flex-config.xml - We could have
>both.
>
>Piotr
>
>On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 12:23 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The VS Code extension requires flex-sdk-description too.
>>
>> I think we should include both flex-sdk-description and
>> royale-sdk-description for now. We can deprecate flex-sdk-description at
>> some point in the future, but I think we should try and make the
>>migration
>> as painless as possible for now.
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>> > On Oct 16, 2017, at 1:29 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Pretty sure that Flash Builder will be looking for
>> > flex-sdk-description.xml.
>> >
>> > It might be that Flash Builder users will have to run an Ant script to
>> > fully set up their SDKs and we could use that to rename a
>> > royale-sdk-description file.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 10/14/17, 1:58 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is a mismatch in this file:
>> >>
>> >> <flex-sdk-description>
>> >> <name>Apache Flex ${project.version} FP${flash.version}
>> >> AIR${air.version} en_US</name>
>> >> <!--version>${project.version}</version-->
>> >> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
>>version
>> >> -->
>> >> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
>> >> <build>${timestamp}</build>
>> >> </royale-sdk-description>
>> >>
>> >> I’m not sure which is a mistake, but eh opening tag of
>> >> flex-sdk-description does not match the closing tag of
>> >> royale-sdk-description
>> >>
>> >> I’m wondering whether Flash Builder will recognize
>> royale-sdk-description.
>> >>
>> >> Harbs
>> >>
>> >>> On Oct 7, 2017, at 12:21 AM, aha...@apache.org wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git
>>a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> index a4bf265..099982c 100644
>> >>> --- a/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> +++ b/distribution/src/main/resources/flex-sdk-description.xml
>> >>> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
>> >>> <!-- This is a hack to trick the FlashBuilder in accepting this
>> >>> version -->
>> >>> <version>4.8.${project.version}</version>
>> >>> <build>${timestamp}</build>
>> >>> -</flex-sdk-description>
>> >>> +</royale-sdk-description>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
