Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both using option-with-swf?
-- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> wrote: > Not sure if this is related, but I found this in > royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml > > <profile> > <id>option-with-swf</id> > <dependencies> > <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests --> > <dependency> > <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId> > <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId> > <version>${flash.version}</version> > <type>swc</type> > <scope>runtime</scope> > </dependency> > </dependencies> > </profile> > > From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > > I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc > files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since he > did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the > > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server > > because of this line > > > > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0 > > > > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES > > > > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get around > > that? > > > > Thanks. > > > > From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > > > > Hi Josh, > > > > I’m running release ant script which has > > > > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources" > > failonerror="true" > > > <arg value="clean" /> > > <arg value="install" /> > > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" /> > > </exec> > > > > This results in > > > > [exec] [INFO] Installing > > > C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile > > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > > [exec] [INFO] > > [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler > > >----------------- > > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 > > [6/13] > > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar > > ]--------------------------------- > > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: > > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom > > [exec] [INFO] > > =========================================================== > > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0 > > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings. > > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > > > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m > > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > > > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > > > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder > > .class] > > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > > > [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > > [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings > > for an explanation. > > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type > > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory] > > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf > > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash > > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player > > playerglobal.swc? > > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, > > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property > > containing your system which is interpr > > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: > > > -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf > > ) > > > > Adding > > > > <arg > > > value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf" > > /> > > > > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or > > if that’s specific to my system. > > > > Can you advise? > > > > Thanks. > > > > From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > > > > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March. > > > > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured > out > > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc > too. > > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs. > > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files > > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex. > > > > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these > > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc > > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid > > start. > > > > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You > > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build > > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can > > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a > zip/tar.gz > > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts. > > > > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if > you > > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and > > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder` > > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but > > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that > to > > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe > > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it. > > > > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point. > > > > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not > everywhere > > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all > > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have > > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe > > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to > prefer > > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our > > airglobal/playerglobal automatically. > > > > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and > > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time > > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify > the > > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll > still > > need Flash Player to run tests, of course). > > > > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is > > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a > > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify > > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution > > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before. > > > > -- > > Josh Tynjala > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed > > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file > using > > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I > > hadn't > > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe > > SWC > > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't > work > > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I > > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can > > now > > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework > (including > > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's > > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too. > > > > > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it > work > > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After > > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it > > possible > > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line. > > > > > > What I still need to do: > > > > > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs > > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc. > > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the > > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in > the > > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects > too. I > > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex, > > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they > > all > > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be > > > looking pretty solid. > > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new > > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like > to > > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe > or > > > Harman, if they'd prefer. > > > > > > -- > > > Josh Tynjala > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the > > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as > > files > > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. > > The > > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own > > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If > > Adobe > > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have > > our > > >> version available as a backup. > > >> > > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build > > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler > errors. > > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used > > in an > > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or > > airglobal.swc. > > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of > > that. > > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far! > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Josh Tynjala > > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected] > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Josh, > > >>> > > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we > have > > >>> the > > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage > by > > >>> mavenizer. > > >>> > > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it? > > >>> > > >>> Thanks > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (< > > [email protected] > > >>> >) > > >>> escribió: > > >>> > > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom > > >>> playerglobal.swc > > >>> > without running into license issues. > > >>> > > > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, > and > > no > > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs > that > > we > > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale > > >>> > > > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for > > playerglobal.swc > > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough > > information > > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone > > could > > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub > > >>> classes > > >>> > and build a SWC from that. > > >>> > > > >>> > -- > > >>> > Josh Tynjala > > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or > not. > > If > > >>> > it’s > > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira < > > [email protected] > > >>> > > > >>> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Harbs, > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a > > >>> piece of > > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the > > >>> > foundation > > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem > > to > > >>> me > > >>> > > like > > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe > > >>> > representatives > > >>> > > to > > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for > > our > > >>> > flex > > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion > after > > we > > >>> > know > > >>> > > > the solution to this request > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can > do > > >>> it, > > >>> > but > > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Thanks > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<[email protected] > >) > > >>> > > escribió: > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or > > the > > >>> > > content > > >>> > > >> debugger. > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if > > >>> > > necessary. > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz < > > >>> > [email protected] > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff > to > > >>> any > > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license > > >>> agreement > > >>> > > you > > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least > it > > >>> did, > > >>> > > wenn > > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things > > changed) > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > -- > > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira > > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation* > > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Carlos Rovira > > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > > >>> *Apache Software Foundation* > > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >
