Hi Om, I'm working on the website content and want to know about NPM to update pages with real info. could you share your plans about releasing Apache Royale in NPM? I suppose you can't still make this due to some final renaming?
Let me know in order to remove this info if you think we'll need more time to get Royale on NPM Thanks! 2017-10-30 19:57 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>: > I think apache-royals would be better, since avoids confusing people. If I > came to this project for the first time, and try to search in npm, and find > "royale", although this was the right and only package, I'll be ask me if > there's the right one. > > With apache-royale, there's no confusion problems ;) > > 2017-10-30 19:50 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>: > >> We always have option of using apache-royale as package name. >> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > It’s a shame that “royale” seems to already be taken on npm. >> > >> > I would vote for two packages: >> > >> > 1. To install *everything* (i.e. swf, js, node, etc. and future targets >> > when/if we add them): >> > npm install apache-royale -g >> > >> > 2. To install js-only: >> > npm install apache-royale-js -g >> > >> > If we see a demand for further packages (i.e. compiler only), we can add >> > them as additional packages later. >> > >> > Harbs >> > >> > > On Oct 30, 2017, at 8:23 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala < >> bigosma...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > 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 <607%2022%2060%2005> >> > >>> >> > >>> 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 <607%2022%2060%2005> > > 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. > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
