Hi Om, for me it's ok, I suppose you refer to 0.9 right? I'll be creating new thread to talk about first website release and what to include, since some things are not ready yet thanks
2017-11-09 20:34 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Did you reserve the name yet? > > > > No I did not. If we are going to be using apache-royale as the package > name, we should be fine. > Unless you are worried someone else might claim it? > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:25 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Carlos Rovira < > carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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! > > >> > > > > > > I was hoping to release the npm version right after we do the first > > release > > > of royale. Does that work? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Om > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> 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 > > >> > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
