Oops! I should have said ROYALE_COMPILER_REPO and ROYALE_TYPEDEFS_REPO
(instead of ROYALE_X_HOME), so tweaks to how the R_X_HOME properties worked
wouldn't be needed.
The SWF SWCs are intended to allow the app developer to only specify one set of
libraries on the library-path in order to build both SWF and JS output, so the
transpilation is required to be in that SWC.
HTH,
-Alex
On 11/30/20, 12:43 AM, "Edward Stangler" <estang...@bradmark.com> wrote:
I actually do want to generate the SWF SWCs. My point was that during
the SWF SWC build, there's no reason to build JS. For example, when
building Basic.swc, it doesn't need to target JS. But while building
BasicJS.swc, then obviously SWF and JS targets are needed. I'm not
familiar with the IDE issues, though.
(BTW, on another machine using the SWCs in the final app, running a
-debug=true compile for JS is much, much faster.)
I'll try the anti-virus thing, thanks.
-=-=-
My original point of this thread was that I did set ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME
(and other stuff) to a nightly build, and it didn't work. So I
explained the exact steps that I used, and how I could modify the
build.xml files to handle ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME correctly.
So, there's probably more work to do (i.e. perhaps in prebuild, as Harbs
pointed out), but the modified build.xml files will at least make it
mostly work, by doing something that seems reasonable (actually reading
the environment variable ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME).
On 11/30/2020 1:44 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I may not fully understand the goals. I think it is:
>
> 1) download the compiler instead of building it so you don't need a JDK
> 2) Only build the JS SWCs because you don't need the SWF SWCs.
>
> For 1), I think you can grab a nightly build or binary release and point
ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME and ROYALE_TYPEDEFS_HOME into the subfolders of that build
so the scripts will copy the appropriate files into your royale-asjs working
copy. I haven't tried, but hopefully it will work or only require a few tweaks
to get to work.
>
> IIRC, the reason the compiler is copied into royale-asjs is so that the
directory can be a legitimate SDK for some Royale/Flex IDEs. I think it also
allows some scripts to work better as well.
>
> For 2), if you don't have AIR_HOME and PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME and
FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER defined in the environment, then the build should skip
building the SWF SWCs. Pretty sure that's how the js-only builds are created.
>
> IIRC, the reason there are both SWF swcs and JS swcs is because, if you
want to have your app target both SWF and JS, the external definitions need to
be more SWF oriented and the JS code "just works" because it doesn't have
strict runtime type checking. But if you only want to target JS, you can have
a different set of external definitions.
>
> Could the build only compile the JS output once? Yes, but currently
there are separate projects for SWF and JS to make some IDEs happy
(FlashBuilder, for example) and each project need to run independently and
probably shouldn't bet on the other project having built the JS output. If
Royale abandons FlashBuilder and other legacy IDEs (probably a good idea in
2021), then the royale-asjs build can be refactored.
>
> Also, on Windows, I have found that disabling virus scanning on file
writing (in the royale-asjs folders and subfolders) can speed up the build.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/29/20, 5:09 PM, "Edward Stangler" wrote:
>
>
> I can understand generating the SWF target for the xJS.swc (JS)
build.
> The SWF targets are fairly quick.
>
> I'm mostly hoping there's a way to avoid building the JS target for
the
> x.swc (SWF) build. The JS targets take much, much longer for my
> machine, at least*. So eliminating half of those would speed up my
> build tremendously.
>
> * = Machine is definitely IOPS-bound, but perhaps just general
slowness.
>
>
> On 11/29/2020 3:18 AM, Harbs wrote:
> > I remember having this discussion before and the reason was nuanced
enough that I don’t remember. The SWCs are not the same, but I don’t remember
exactly the difference.
> >
> > JS SWCs always require a SWF target because that generates the
actual SWC which the JS files are then added to. It would be great to be able
to avoid that piece, but that’s not something that we’ve done yet.
> >
> >> On Nov 29, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Edward Stangler wrote:
> >>
> >> BTW, why are both SWF and JS targets being built for both x.swc and
> >> xJS.swc? Seems like double the compile time (both x and xJS get
built
> >> at the same time, anyway).
