Hi Om, If I could choose one, I think I'll with 3, in order to have one solid command line, and the some possible configurations via params... But if is finaly option 3 (one command line + option args), I'll prefer something that that not comprise outputs (in the future we could add webasm, swift, java android....), so I would vote for something like:
npm install royale -g and sub options could be: --include-js-support. (this could be default if we consider it) --include-swf-support --include-webasm-support ...and so on What do you think? Best, Carlos 2017-10-30 19:23 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>: > So, "npm install" downloads a tarball from npmjs.org. The package usually > contains the code we want others to use. It also contains a "package.json" > file which specify all its dependencies. These dependencies (and their > sub-dependencies) are all downloaded from npmjs.org as part of "npm > install". > > There are options to run custom scripts before and after the npm install. > In the case of FlexJS, we run a script afterwards that simply downloads our > non-npmjs.org dependencies (royale sdk, fonts, flash player, air, etc.) > and > puts them in the correct places. > > So, our options are: > > 1. Publish two different packages on npmjs.org: jsonly and js+swf. We > need to figure out the names of these packages, since they are unique > identifiers on npmjs's registry. > > Then the command the users would run would look like: > npm install royale-jsonly -g > npm install royale-js-and-swf -g > > 2. Publish only the jsonly package. > Then the command the users would run would look like: > npm install royale-jsonly -g > > 3. Possibly, we can figure out a way to optionally download swf support. > This way, by default the jsonly is downoaded and unzipped. Then we could > (possibly) look at the args or have the user run another command that > downloads the swf support. > > Then the command the users would run would (possibly) look like: > npm install royale -- -include-swf-support -g > > (or) > npm install royale-jsonly -g > and then > ./update-royale-include-swf-support > > In all three cases, we can definitely run a script that alters xml configs, > etc. to suit our needs. > > Hope that helps. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Om, > > > > Can you explain to us what our options are? Essentially, the JS-only > > package will be a subset of a package that can output both SWF and JS and > > will probably have slightly different default settings in, for example, a > > frameworks/royale-config.xml file. > > > > It is looking like we can create a zip package for JS-only that will work > > in Moonshine and VSCode, but to fully make it work in Flash Builder (and > > maybe some other IDEs) you will need to run a script of some sort that > > fixes up some FB launch configurations that convert Flex projects to > > Royale projects. > > > > The current plan for a "FlexJS" package that has SWF support (for users > > that want use SWF for testing or as a migration step) will require that > > users unzip a package and run an Ant script to bring down Adobe > > dependencies. I'm thinking we won't use the Flex installer. > > > > I'm still working through why one of our users isn't getting code > > completion working in FB and the answer there may affect packaging as > well. > > > > I don't know NPM well enough to have an opinion on, if we distribute two > > packages (flexjs-with-swf-support and js-only), whether NPM allows us to > > have two different packages or whether it is better to structure NPM > > releases as js-only package and a swf-support-add-on package. > > > > I also don't know if the NPM install should run a script that fixes up > > those launch configs. Maybe it is better to continue to leave them as > "FB > > users have to run this additional Ant script" or something like that. > I'm > > not sure how important FB still is to our ease-of-migration story. > > > > Maybe showing us what folks would have to type on the command line might > > help us form opinions. > > > > Thoughts? > > -Alex > > > > > > On 10/30/17, 4:36 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos > Rovira" > > <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > > wrote: > > > > >Hi Om, > > > > > >I think that would be great! > > > > > >If we end having multiple products as Alex suggested, I think we should > > >have as well multiple NPM installs. > > >So for me is ok to sync products we deliver with NPM installations > flavors > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > >2017-10-30 10:58 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>: > > > > > >> You’re likely to do most of the maintenance work, so it’s up to you… > As > > >> far as users go there are some users writing client code in AIR and > > >>server > > >> code in node (in fact I’m involved in such a project right now). So I > > >> wouldn’t make sweeping assumptions. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> ________________________________ > > >> From: omup...@gmail.com <omup...@gmail.com> on behalf of OmPrakash > > >> Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> > > >> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:21:37 AM > > >> To: dev@royale.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: Publishing royale to npm > > >> > > >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Why not publish both versions? > > >> > > > >> > > >> It looks like the js only is going to be just a zip file. That makes > > >>for > > >> easy maintenance. > > >> The swf version has a bunch of dependencies to be downloaded. > > >> > > >> Not a big deal, just thinking out loud if we really need to publish > two > > >> different packages that might lead to confusion. > > >> > > >> I'm open to both, though. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Om > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:15 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala < > > >> bigosma...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > I was wondering if we should publish the apache.royale-jsonly > verson > > >> via > > >> > > npm instead of the full version with swf support. > > >> > > After all, users coming in vial npm would most likely not expect > swf > > >> > > support. > > >> > > > > >> > > Any thoughts on this proposal? > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Om > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo > > >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a > > 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b > > >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881& > > sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0 > > >t4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > >Carlos Rovira > > > > > >Director General > > > > > >M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > > > > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos > > >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a > > 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3 > > >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881& > > sdata=wZgQd0X2xX6ed8y0t > > >4O87r66gMlVy%2F8aHqtpwnq8O6w%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! > > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e > > >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5f3b122f189e4e0f119b08d51f8a > > 81b0%7Cfa7b1b5a > > >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636449602097009881& > > sdata=JK22xVqobAGGnZ > > >b8laWESXHS3NA5nLdscBYTEHml7Pk%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > -- <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.
