Sorry, I forgot to attach my compilation task: … call ant super-clean call mvn clean install -DskipTests -Drat.skip=true -P option-with-sass-compile SET JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS=-Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m call ant all -Dbuild.noprompt=true -Drelease.target=true -Dskip-tests=true
Hiedra De: Maria Jose Esteve <[email protected]> Enviado el: domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021 1:37 Para: [email protected] Asunto: RE: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. Hi, @Greg, I downloaded your latest changes to royale-asjs and got an error in the ant compilation. The general error: BUILD FAILED D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\build.xml:696: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:155: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\build.xml:554: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:108: The following error occurred while executing this line: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\build.xml:134: condition satisfied in the compilation ant: Crux: [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 clean: [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 check-for-tests: clean-tests: check-compiler-home: check-transpiler-home: check-compiler: compile: [echo] swc-date is 10/10/21 01:06 +0200 compile-swf: [echo] Compiling libs/Crux.swc [echo] ROYALE_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [echo] ROYALE_SWF_COMPILER_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [echo] ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME: D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/js [java] Picked up JAVA_TOOL_OPTIONS: -Dfile.encoding=UTF-8 -Xms256m -Xmx2048m [java] args: [java] +royalelib=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks [java] +playerglobal.version=11.1 [java] +env.AIR_HOME=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork [java] -compiler.strict-xml=true [java] -compiler.targets=SWF,JSRoyale [java] -metadata.date=10/10/21 01:06 +0200 [java] -metadata.dateFormat=MM/dd/yy HH:mm Z [java] -swf-debugfile-alias=/org/apache/royale/0.9.9 [java] -output=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/target/Crux.swc [java] -load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/src/main/config/compile-swf-config.xml [java] -js-load-config=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork/frameworks/js-config.xml [java] -js-load-config+=D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux/../../js/projects/CruxJS/src/main/config/compile-js-config.xml [java] 0.601410729 seconds [java] D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml(40): col: 0 unable to open 'D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\libs\MXRoyaleBase.swc'. [java] D:\Develop_Royale\Projects\Royale-SDK\royale-asjs-fork\frameworks\projects\Crux\src\main\config\compile-swf-config.xml (line: 40) [java] [java] </external-library-path> [java] [java] I have verified that MXRoyaleBase.swc has not been generated. Attached is the compilation log. Hiedra -----Mensaje original----- De: Greg Dove <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Enviado el: sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021 22:19 Para: Apache Royale Development <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Asunto: Re: MXRoyale splitting to two libs - please provide your feedback. OK, thanks for the feedback everyone. I pushed the changes yesterday, and made changes to the crux examples to use MXRoyaleBase instead of MXRoyale in the dependencies, and quickly tested the ant and maven builds for those examples. I built one of them again locally using the downloaded maven artifacts today and it worked as it should, so it seems all is well (at least for simple testing). Let me know if you see any issues, but so far I believe it's working as it should. In terms of possibly moving more things from MXRoyale to MXRoyaleBase, there could be more candidates for doing that, but in order to do that there should be no dependency link to any UI implementations for each case. Greg On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:28 PM Harbs <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > This will not effect me much. Sounds like a good idea, though. > > Harbs > > > On Oct 6, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Greg Dove > > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I have had at least two requests for it, and others still express > > support for it, and it has been said in past discussions that if > > someone is > willing > > to 'put in the work' that it's welcome... so I wanted to signal my > > intention to split MXRoyale up into two libraries - the first being > > most > of > > the non-UI classes "MXRoyaleBase", and the second being the same as > > the current "MXRoyale" lib is now. > > > > I already have this working locally, so this is really just a > > check-in to make sure everyone is comfortable with it before I push > > any changes > related > > to this. > > If, after reading this post, you have any concerns, can you please > > share them in reply to this thread. > > > > The change will make it easier for people who want to use (for > > example) > the > > mx services/remoting support with a non-emulation component set (e.g. > > Jewel). It may also make it easier for any Royale developer who > > wants to take a shot at an alternate version of the mx emulation set > > (if anyone is so inclined) because the non-UI parts and likely some > > of the UI > interfaces > > only will be in the MXRoyaleBase library. As an example, someone > > might > want > > to create a new emulation set that more closely mirrors (assuming it > > is possible to do so) the original measurement and layout aspects of > > the > Flex > > lifecycle, or which takes advantage of more modern browser APIs > > because they don't care about support for older browsers, or simply > > for whatever other reasons they might have. > > > > What impact will it have on me? > > *Royale User:* > > No change for emulation users: If you are using MXRoyale currently, > > it > will > > continue to work as it has before. > > Non-emulation users: If you want to use mx service classes (for > > example) > in > > some non-emulation component set (e.g. Jewel or Basic), it will make > things > > easier for you because you can switch to MXRoyaleBase.swc and won't > > have > to > > exclude the css from the MXRoyale.swc. At the same time, the current > > approach for excluding css will continue to work as before. > > > > *Royale Developer:* > > The source code from the current MXRoyale codebase will be split > > into two > > libraries- MXRoyaleBase for mostly non-UI code and MXRoyale which > > will be mostly the UI implementation code. MXRoyale swc build will > > include the MXRoyaleBase source code and its mxml component > > definitions so that the code from the other swc gets included, > > resulting in the same swc build as before for MXRoyale (this avoids > > breaking any builds for folks using MXRoyale). The biggest impact > > from an emulation developer's perspective > is > > that potentially you might need to look in two library codebases > > (e.g. if you are making changes to IUIComponent which is in > > MXRoyaleBase and UIComponent which is in MXRoyale). If you are > > working on non-UI code, it should mainly be in MXRoyaleBase. If you > > are mainly working mainly on the UI code, which I think is very > > often the case, it will continue to be in MXRoyale. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > >
