Hi Alex, I'm very busy finishing our app for this Friday, so I'll work on this on the weekend and come back with the results I get. Thanks!
El mar., 27 nov. 2018 a las 23:09, Alex Harui (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) escribió: > Carlos, > > What is written below is not really useful data, just a story. It is > really hard for me to guess what is going on. You didn't indicate or show > output that proves that whatever configs you are trying to use actually got > used. Nor is there any indication that you proceeded with any suggestions > I have made so far. You could have typed something incorrectly, used the > wrong compiler option, etc. I have no idea of what errors were output for > what source. There are too many possibilities. > > I thought of another approach for you to try: Because you are not using > MXRoyale UI widgets, I think you don't want configname=flex as it will pick > defaults for Flex that you don't want, so remove that and make sure that > royale-config is being used and has the list of SWCs as I committed it, > instead of the wildcard/folder you committed. > > In theory, that royale-config should list every SWC except MXRoyale and > SparkRoyale. Instead of using a folder, you should be able to add those > two SWCs using -library-path+=<path to>/MXRoyale.swc and > -library-path+=<path to>/SparkRoyale.swc, and similarly, > -js-library-path+=<path to>/MXRoyaleJS.swc and -js-library-path+=<path > to>/SparkRoyaleJS.swc > > IOW, since royale-config used to work for you, and the only change should > have been to unlist MXRoyale and SparkRoyale, it should be the least effort > to re-list those two SWCs. Try that, and report actual data like some > console output, and the source associated with any errors. > > -Alex > > On 11/27/18, 8:11 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > just created a branch "feature//config-name-changes" that starts with > the > revert of my commit > > What I tried and didn't work is to : > > 1.- duplicate royale-config-template.xml > 2.- Add "MXRoyale.swc" to both libs list (for SWF and for JS) > 3.- Add a namespace entry for MXRoyale to namespaces > > I think that should work out of the box, but listing concrete SWCs make > IDEs fail > > thanks > > > > > El mar., 27 nov. 2018 a las 10:50, Carlos Rovira (< > carlosrov...@apache.org>) > escribió: > > > Alex, > > > > no body is making this a personal attack. Just pointing that maybe > both > > are doing things wrong. > > > > In the other hand you know that no breaking build does not mean that > we > > are not breaking things. If I remove code in some UIBase setter, I > can > > make all Royale apps fail without breaking the build right?. The > problem > > here is the same but with IDEs. > > > > We all have to accept others people warnings and problems and don't > think > > our commits are infallible. > > > > I think Dave suggestion is the way to go. We can go to a branch and > revert > > my commit so we can try how to get both things working. > > > > And again, we all know how emails works in making things removing the > > human touch, so don't think that I'm making any personal attack > since is > > not my intention. And if I do in some way, just accept my apologies > for > > that. > > > > I'll create the branch today as I have time and revert the change so > we > > can progress with this issue > > > > thanks! > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > El mar., 27 nov. 2018 a las 8:34, Alex Harui > (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > > escribió: > > > >> > >> > >> On 11/26/18, 10:42 PM, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> (1) Maybe you should be on a branch too! > >> > >> (2) Merges happen when everyone is ready! > >> > >> Now discuss development branches > >> > >> > >> We have. We use them when we judge them necessary for big > disruptive > >> changes. I didn't and still don't think it was necessary. The > builds and > >> tests and examples passed. > >> > >> If you are supporting reverting other people's commits, personal > attacks, > >> and committing changes without justification, then I am really > surprised > >> and disappointed. I would think we would want less of that, not > more. > >> > >> My 2 cents, > >> -Alex > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8426b5aa23034aafe1ad08d65482ee74%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636789318655224607&sdata=lr0by7FhNCN%2FyBvvMs%2FR%2BzGNvn6634kyQMhlGqX7uxE%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C8426b5aa23034aafe1ad08d65482ee74%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636789318655224607&sdata=lr0by7FhNCN%2FyBvvMs%2FR%2BzGNvn6634kyQMhlGqX7uxE%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
