Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Alex Harui]

Might you have an AIR_HOME environment variable?  The scripts assume a truly 
clean system where someone wanting js-only wouldn't have AIR set up in the 
environment.

-Alex

On 2/5/20, 7:21 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala"  wrote:

I'm sorry I missed this thread from a while ago.

I tried Alex's suggested fix on my current npm installation, but I am still
getting the same error.

Here is the pastbein: 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpastebin.com%2Fraw%2Ft4v8CWYe&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C898eaedfd50d43abb76208d7aab3a109%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637165560793716399&sdata=0Mn9YhoSLoDLF3qDeRQsGCOJYRn%2B6KATOhCSph%2BCWDc%3D&reserved=0

Maybe I am doing it wrong?

Thanks,
Om

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:31 AM Alex Harui 
wrote:

> We've never tried a hotfix release version.  Could be a lot of work to get
> it to work.  Might be easier to just roll forward to 0.9.7.  Volunteers 
are
> welcome to try.  I won't be spending time on it.
>
> Regarding a "modified SDK", the issue is not a licensing issue, but a
> branding issue.  We would not want other people altering our release
> artifacts and calling it an "Apache Royale" release, right?  Plus they
> cannot get the checksums to match what is on dist.a.o.
>
> However, if Moonshine is going to automate the fixing of the artifact, I
> think that's totally fine.  So instead of downloading a modified artifact,
> if Moonshine can download the actual 0.9.6 release, unpack it and then
> modify the royale-config.xml, that is totally fine.  I would recommend 
that
> being mentioned in the Moonshine release notes and added to our wiki
> release notes so folks know that they don't have to manually fix up the
> file.
>
> Have we added any notes about this problem to our online wiki release
> notes?  I'm generally unavailable today tending to a sick child.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 10/14/19, 3:51 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>
> Hi Piotr,
>
> about license: My common sense says that you can provide a modified 
SDK
> (since is an Open Source project) but you should state that *it is
> not* the
> official 0.9.6 SDK release, but a modified one provided by Moonshine
> to fix
> an issue. Maybe others could know and say more about this.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:39, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
> > Ok that's can be an idea - It may happen or not - We will see.
> Currently
> > I'm interested really in an answer for the license question.
> >
> > pon., 14 paź 2019 o 12:34 Carlos Rovira 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > >
> > > I think since is a hot fix it starts from 0.9.6 release branch and
> there
> > > you apply the fix to generate a 0.9.6.1.
> > > Then when released the hot fix is merged in current develop branch
> with
> > > 0.9.7
> > > Or at least is what I suppose it should be
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:15, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hi Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > I was talking exactly about hot fix. However it seems to me a 
bit
> > > > difficult, cause we have now in develop version 0.9.7 - I'm not
> really
> > > sure
> > > > how maven react if I change it to 0.6.1 ;)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > pon., 14 paź 2019 o 11:13 Carlos Rovira  >
> > > > napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > > >
> > > > > other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if
> you want
> > > to
> > > > > release in few days
> > > > > what do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm willing to try release very soon another version of
> Royale just
> > > > with
> > > > > > fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't
> happen
> > next
> > > > > week I
> > > > > > will probably do that next month which will be I think
> enough to
> > have
> > > > > > proper release not only with that fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to
> release
> > > > Moonshine
> > > > > > where one of the update is that u

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[OmPrakash Muppirala]

I'm sorry I missed this thread from a while ago.

I tried Alex's suggested fix on my current npm installation, but I am still
getting the same error.

Here is the pastbein: https://pastebin.com/raw/t4v8CWYe

Maybe I am doing it wrong?

Thanks,
Om

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:31 AM Alex Harui 
wrote:

> We've never tried a hotfix release version.  Could be a lot of work to get
> it to work.  Might be easier to just roll forward to 0.9.7.  Volunteers are
> welcome to try.  I won't be spending time on it.
>
> Regarding a "modified SDK", the issue is not a licensing issue, but a
> branding issue.  We would not want other people altering our release
> artifacts and calling it an "Apache Royale" release, right?  Plus they
> cannot get the checksums to match what is on dist.a.o.
>
> However, if Moonshine is going to automate the fixing of the artifact, I
> think that's totally fine.  So instead of downloading a modified artifact,
> if Moonshine can download the actual 0.9.6 release, unpack it and then
> modify the royale-config.xml, that is totally fine.  I would recommend that
> being mentioned in the Moonshine release notes and added to our wiki
> release notes so folks know that they don't have to manually fix up the
> file.
>
> Have we added any notes about this problem to our online wiki release
> notes?  I'm generally unavailable today tending to a sick child.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 10/14/19, 3:51 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:
>
> Hi Piotr,
>
> about license: My common sense says that you can provide a modified SDK
> (since is an Open Source project) but you should state that *it is
> not* the
> official 0.9.6 SDK release, but a modified one provided by Moonshine
> to fix
> an issue. Maybe others could know and say more about this.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:39, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
> > Ok that's can be an idea - It may happen or not - We will see.
> Currently
> > I'm interested really in an answer for the license question.
> >
> > pon., 14 paź 2019 o 12:34 Carlos Rovira 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > >
> > > I think since is a hot fix it starts from 0.9.6 release branch and
> there
> > > you apply the fix to generate a 0.9.6.1.
> > > Then when released the hot fix is merged in current develop branch
> with
> > > 0.9.7
> > > Or at least is what I suppose it should be
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:15, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hi Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > I was talking exactly about hot fix. However it seems to me a bit
> > > > difficult, cause we have now in develop version 0.9.7 - I'm not
> really
> > > sure
> > > > how maven react if I change it to 0.6.1 ;)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > pon., 14 paź 2019 o 11:13 Carlos Rovira  >
> > > > napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > > >
> > > > > other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if
> you want
> > > to
> > > > > release in few days
> > > > > what do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm willing to try release very soon another version of
> Royale just
> > > > with
> > > > > > fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't
> happen
> > next
> > > > > week I
> > > > > > will probably do that next month which will be I think
> enough to
> > have
> > > > > > proper release not only with that fix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to
> release
> > > > Moonshine
> > > > > > where one of the update is that user will be able download
> latest
> > > > release
> > > > > > of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and
> provide
> > > fixed
> > > > > sdk,
> > > > > > but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Piotr
> > > > > >
> > > > > > pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrov...@apache.org>
> > > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Fred,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info
> there
> > :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and
> hope
> > > other
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > talk about others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should
> report this
> > > kind
> > > > > of
> > > >

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Alex Harui]

We've never tried a hotfix release version.  Could be a lot of work to get it 
to work.  Might be easier to just roll forward to 0.9.7.  Volunteers are 
welcome to try.  I won't be spending time on it.

Regarding a "modified SDK", the issue is not a licensing issue, but a branding 
issue.  We would not want other people altering our release artifacts and 
calling it an "Apache Royale" release, right?  Plus they cannot get the 
checksums to match what is on dist.a.o.

However, if Moonshine is going to automate the fixing of the artifact, I think 
that's totally fine.  So instead of downloading a modified artifact, if 
Moonshine can download the actual 0.9.6 release, unpack it and then modify the 
royale-config.xml, that is totally fine.  I would recommend that being 
mentioned in the Moonshine release notes and added to our wiki release notes so 
folks know that they don't have to manually fix up the file.

Have we added any notes about this problem to our online wiki release notes?  
I'm generally unavailable today tending to a sick child.

My 2 cents,
-Alex

On 10/14/19, 3:51 AM, "Carlos Rovira"  wrote:

Hi Piotr,

about license: My common sense says that you can provide a modified SDK
(since is an Open Source project) but you should state that *it is not* the
official 0.9.6 SDK release, but a modified one provided by Moonshine to fix
an issue. Maybe others could know and say more about this.

Thanks



El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:39, Piotr Zarzycki (<
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Ok that's can be an idea - It may happen or not - We will see. Currently
> I'm interested really in an answer for the license question.
>
> pon., 14 paź 2019 o 12:34 Carlos Rovira 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > I think since is a hot fix it starts from 0.9.6 release branch and there
> > you apply the fix to generate a 0.9.6.1.
> > Then when released the hot fix is merged in current develop branch with
> > 0.9.7
> > Or at least is what I suppose it should be
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:15, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > I was talking exactly about hot fix. However it seems to me a bit
> > > difficult, cause we have now in develop version 0.9.7 - I'm not really
> > sure
> > > how maven react if I change it to 0.6.1 ;)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > pon., 14 paź 2019 o 11:13 Carlos Rovira 
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > >
> > > > other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if you 
want
> > to
> > > > release in few days
> > > > what do you think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm willing to try release very soon another version of Royale 
just
> > > with
> > > > > fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't happen
> next
> > > > week I
> > > > > will probably do that next month which will be I think enough to
> have
> > > > > proper release not only with that fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to release
> > > Moonshine
> > > > > where one of the update is that user will be able download latest
> > > release
> > > > > of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.
> > > > >
> > > > > We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and provide
> > fixed
> > > > sdk,
> > > > > but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Piotr
> > > > >
> > > > > pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira 
> > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Fred,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there
> :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope
> > other
> > > > can
> > > > > > talk about others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this
> > kind
> > > > of
> > > > > > work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
> > > > > > official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the
> > > > community
> > > > > > are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and
> > others
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come
> > soon!
> > > :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been
> done
> > > on
> > > > > make
> > > > > > a better

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr,

about license: My common sense says that you can provide a modified SDK
(since is an Open Source project) but you should state that *it is not* the
official 0.9.6 SDK release, but a modified one provided by Moonshine to fix
an issue. Maybe others could know and say more about this.

Thanks



El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:39, Piotr Zarzycki (<
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Ok that's can be an idea - It may happen or not - We will see. Currently
> I'm interested really in an answer for the license question.
>
> pon., 14 paź 2019 o 12:34 Carlos Rovira 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > I think since is a hot fix it starts from 0.9.6 release branch and there
> > you apply the fix to generate a 0.9.6.1.
> > Then when released the hot fix is merged in current develop branch with
> > 0.9.7
> > Or at least is what I suppose it should be
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:15, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > I was talking exactly about hot fix. However it seems to me a bit
> > > difficult, cause we have now in develop version 0.9.7 - I'm not really
> > sure
> > > how maven react if I change it to 0.6.1 ;)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > pon., 14 paź 2019 o 11:13 Carlos Rovira 
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hi Piotr,
> > > >
> > > > other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if you want
> > to
> > > > release in few days
> > > > what do you think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm willing to try release very soon another version of Royale just
> > > with
> > > > > fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't happen
> next
> > > > week I
> > > > > will probably do that next month which will be I think enough to
> have
> > > > > proper release not only with that fix.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to release
> > > Moonshine
> > > > > where one of the update is that user will be able download latest
> > > release
> > > > > of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.
> > > > >
> > > > > We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and provide
> > fixed
> > > > sdk,
> > > > > but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Piotr
> > > > >
> > > > > pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira 
> > > > > napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Fred,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there
> :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope
> > other
> > > > can
> > > > > > talk about others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this
> > kind
> > > > of
> > > > > > work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
> > > > > > official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the
> > > > community
> > > > > > are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and
> > others
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come
> > soon!
> > > :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been
> done
> > > on
> > > > > make
> > > > > > a better release process. We expect to release more often thanks
> to
> > > > that
> > > > > > effort done. Maybe each 2 month will be a good timeframe to do
> it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think people like you is what we need this days. People
> playing,
> > > > > asking,
> > > > > > reporting, and as well helping others like you already did in SOF
> > and
> > > > > other
> > > > > > channels. In this way we'll be able to make Royale bigger and
> > better.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > is what make Open Source great that we can make it better thanks
> to
> > > all
> > > > > of
> > > > > > us.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last point. I think you have now the current knowledge to build
> > from
> > > > > > scratch with repos. I can give you support if you want.
> > > > > > In that way you'll be able to develop the SDK if you want and
> > submit
> > > > more
> > > > > > PRs. Eventually, you can be a committer and part of the team if
> you
> > > > show
> > > > > > things like motivation, knowledge on code base, activity,...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carlos
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 23:06, 
> > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh
> user
> > on
> > > > > > > Apache Royale, hope it will help...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The background :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because
> for
> > > me
> > > > > > > it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do som

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Ok that's can be an idea - It may happen or not - We will see. Currently
I'm interested really in an answer for the license question.

pon., 14 paź 2019 o 12:34 Carlos Rovira 
napisał(a):

> Hi Piotr,
>
> I think since is a hot fix it starts from 0.9.6 release branch and there
> you apply the fix to generate a 0.9.6.1.
> Then when released the hot fix is merged in current develop branch with
> 0.9.7
> Or at least is what I suppose it should be
>
>
>
>
> El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:15, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
> > Hi Carlos,
> >
> > I was talking exactly about hot fix. However it seems to me a bit
> > difficult, cause we have now in develop version 0.9.7 - I'm not really
> sure
> > how maven react if I change it to 0.6.1 ;)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > pon., 14 paź 2019 o 11:13 Carlos Rovira 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Piotr,
> > >
> > > other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if you want
> to
> > > release in few days
> > > what do you think?
> > >
> > >
> > > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hey Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I'm willing to try release very soon another version of Royale just
> > with
> > > > fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't happen next
> > > week I
> > > > will probably do that next month which will be I think enough to have
> > > > proper release not only with that fix.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to release
> > Moonshine
> > > > where one of the update is that user will be able download latest
> > release
> > > > of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.
> > > >
> > > > We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and provide
> fixed
> > > sdk,
> > > > but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Piotr
> > > >
> > > > pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira 
> > > > napisał(a):
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Fred,
> > > > >
> > > > > many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope
> other
> > > can
> > > > > talk about others.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
> > > > > official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the
> > > community
> > > > > are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and
> others
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come
> soon!
> > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been done
> > on
> > > > make
> > > > > a better release process. We expect to release more often thanks to
> > > that
> > > > > effort done. Maybe each 2 month will be a good timeframe to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think people like you is what we need this days. People playing,
> > > > asking,
> > > > > reporting, and as well helping others like you already did in SOF
> and
> > > > other
> > > > > channels. In this way we'll be able to make Royale bigger and
> better.
> > > > This
> > > > > is what make Open Source great that we can make it better thanks to
> > all
> > > > of
> > > > > us.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last point. I think you have now the current knowledge to build
> from
> > > > > scratch with repos. I can give you support if you want.
> > > > > In that way you'll be able to develop the SDK if you want and
> submit
> > > more
> > > > > PRs. Eventually, you can be a committer and part of the team if you
> > > show
> > > > > things like motivation, knowledge on code base, activity,...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlos
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 23:06, 
> > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh user
> on
> > > > > > Apache Royale, hope it will help...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The background :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because for
> > me
> > > > > > it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do something that
> > > would
> > > > > > have same render on all browser. Also no lost time on script
> config
> > > or
> > > > > > something else, just launch FlexBuilder set sdk main folder path
> > and
> > > > > > play with it, no headaches ...a real dream for a dev guy. At
> > > beginning
> > > > I
> > > > > > learned Flex essentialy with "TourDeFlex" and "Component style
> > > > > > explorer", and after with somes blogs and articles dealing with
> > > > > > componant life cycle and other interessing stuff
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All my customer are happy because of the short time of devs. When
> > > Adobe
> > > > > > announce end of life of flashplayer plugin in browser, solutions
> > like
> > > 

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr,

I think since is a hot fix it starts from 0.9.6 release branch and there
you apply the fix to generate a 0.9.6.1.
Then when released the hot fix is merged in current develop branch with
0.9.7
Or at least is what I suppose it should be




El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 12:15, Piotr Zarzycki (<
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> I was talking exactly about hot fix. However it seems to me a bit
> difficult, cause we have now in develop version 0.9.7 - I'm not really sure
> how maven react if I change it to 0.6.1 ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> pon., 14 paź 2019 o 11:13 Carlos Rovira 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if you want to
> > release in few days
> > what do you think?
> >
> >
> > El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Hey Guys,
> > >
> > > I'm willing to try release very soon another version of Royale just
> with
> > > fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't happen next
> > week I
> > > will probably do that next month which will be I think enough to have
> > > proper release not only with that fix.
> > >
> > > Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to release
> Moonshine
> > > where one of the update is that user will be able download latest
> release
> > > of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.
> > >
> > > We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and provide fixed
> > sdk,
> > > but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira 
> > > napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > Hi Fred,
> > > >
> > > > many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there :)
> > > >
> > > > Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope other
> > can
> > > > talk about others.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this kind
> > of
> > > > work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
> > > > official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the
> > community
> > > > are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and others
> on
> > > the
> > > > works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come soon!
> :)
> > > >
> > > > Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been done
> on
> > > make
> > > > a better release process. We expect to release more often thanks to
> > that
> > > > effort done. Maybe each 2 month will be a good timeframe to do it.
> > > >
> > > > I think people like you is what we need this days. People playing,
> > > asking,
> > > > reporting, and as well helping others like you already did in SOF and
> > > other
> > > > channels. In this way we'll be able to make Royale bigger and better.
> > > This
> > > > is what make Open Source great that we can make it better thanks to
> all
> > > of
> > > > us.
> > > >
> > > > Last point. I think you have now the current knowledge to build from
> > > > scratch with repos. I can give you support if you want.
> > > > In that way you'll be able to develop the SDK if you want and submit
> > more
> > > > PRs. Eventually, you can be a committer and part of the team if you
> > show
> > > > things like motivation, knowledge on code base, activity,...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 23:06, 
> escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh user on
> > > > > Apache Royale, hope it will help...
> > > > >
> > > > > The background :
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because for
> me
> > > > > it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do something that
> > would
> > > > > have same render on all browser. Also no lost time on script config
> > or
> > > > > something else, just launch FlexBuilder set sdk main folder path
> and
> > > > > play with it, no headaches ...a real dream for a dev guy. At
> > beginning
> > > I
> > > > > learned Flex essentialy with "TourDeFlex" and "Component style
> > > > > explorer", and after with somes blogs and articles dealing with
> > > > > componant life cycle and other interessing stuff
> > > > >
> > > > > All my customer are happy because of the short time of devs. When
> > Adobe
> > > > > announce end of life of flashplayer plugin in browser, solutions
> like
> > > > > Angular, React, etc, seems to me and other devs guys from my
> > > sourronding
> > > > > a back to the past. I play a little with these frameworks but for
> me
> > > > > it's not the solution : you need to know bootstrap, css, html,
> > > > > javascript,etc..., this is a real nightmare... and dev time would
> be
> > > > > multiply by 2 or 3 on projects even small or big ones. So we move
> > ours
> > > > > app to Air for those which doesn't need the browser use.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dis

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Carlos,

I was talking exactly about hot fix. However it seems to me a bit
difficult, cause we have now in develop version 0.9.7 - I'm not really sure
how maven react if I change it to 0.6.1 ;)

Thanks,
Piotr

pon., 14 paź 2019 o 11:13 Carlos Rovira 
napisał(a):

> Hi Piotr,
>
> other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if you want to
> release in few days
> what do you think?
>
>
> El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki (<
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > Hey Guys,
> >
> > I'm willing to try release very soon another version of Royale just with
> > fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't happen next
> week I
> > will probably do that next month which will be I think enough to have
> > proper release not only with that fix.
> >
> > Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to release Moonshine
> > where one of the update is that user will be able download latest release
> > of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.
> >
> > We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and provide fixed
> sdk,
> > but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Piotr
> >
> > pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > Hi Fred,
> > >
> > > many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there :)
> > >
> > > Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope other
> can
> > > talk about others.
> > >
> > > I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this kind
> of
> > > work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
> > > official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the
> community
> > > are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and others on
> > the
> > > works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come soon! :)
> > >
> > > Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been done on
> > make
> > > a better release process. We expect to release more often thanks to
> that
> > > effort done. Maybe each 2 month will be a good timeframe to do it.
> > >
> > > I think people like you is what we need this days. People playing,
> > asking,
> > > reporting, and as well helping others like you already did in SOF and
> > other
> > > channels. In this way we'll be able to make Royale bigger and better.
> > This
> > > is what make Open Source great that we can make it better thanks to all
> > of
> > > us.
> > >
> > > Last point. I think you have now the current knowledge to build from
> > > scratch with repos. I can give you support if you want.
> > > In that way you'll be able to develop the SDK if you want and submit
> more
> > > PRs. Eventually, you can be a committer and part of the team if you
> show
> > > things like motivation, knowledge on code base, activity,...
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 23:06,  escribió:
> > >
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh user on
> > > > Apache Royale, hope it will help...
> > > >
> > > > The background :
> > > >
> > > > I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because for me
> > > > it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do something that
> would
> > > > have same render on all browser. Also no lost time on script config
> or
> > > > something else, just launch FlexBuilder set sdk main folder path and
> > > > play with it, no headaches ...a real dream for a dev guy. At
> beginning
> > I
> > > > learned Flex essentialy with "TourDeFlex" and "Component style
> > > > explorer", and after with somes blogs and articles dealing with
> > > > componant life cycle and other interessing stuff
> > > >
> > > > All my customer are happy because of the short time of devs. When
> Adobe
> > > > announce end of life of flashplayer plugin in browser, solutions like
> > > > Angular, React, etc, seems to me and other devs guys from my
> > sourronding
> > > > a back to the past. I play a little with these frameworks but for me
> > > > it's not the solution : you need to know bootstrap, css, html,
> > > > javascript,etc..., this is a real nightmare... and dev time would be
> > > > multiply by 2 or 3 on projects even small or big ones. So we move
> ours
> > > > app to Air for those which doesn't need the browser use.
> > > >
> > > > Discover of Royale:
> > > >
> > > > I discover Royale because of search for alternate solutions to quick
> > > > make browser applications. As I remember, when I meet Michael Chaize
> 6
> > > > or 7 years ago at Montpellier (France), he tells that FalconJS will
> be
> > > > the futur to output Flex content to Javascript. Unfortunaly I thought
> > it
> > > > was death because the lack of communication on it. Now I reborn using
> > > > Royale, play with it since 2 weeks when I have some time to learn
> more.
> > > > For me, Apache Royale has a huge potential, unfortunaly not enougth
> > > > know.
> > > >
> > > > At 

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Piotr,

other option is to release a hot fix version like 0.9.6.1 if you want to
release in few days
what do you think?


El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 9:58, Piotr Zarzycki ()
escribió:

> Hey Guys,
>
> I'm willing to try release very soon another version of Royale just with
> fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't happen next week I
> will probably do that next month which will be I think enough to have
> proper release not only with that fix.
>
> Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to release Moonshine
> where one of the update is that user will be able download latest release
> of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.
>
> We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and provide fixed sdk,
> but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Fred,
> >
> > many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there :)
> >
> > Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope other can
> > talk about others.
> >
> > I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this kind of
> > work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
> > official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the community
> > are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and others on
> the
> > works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come soon! :)
> >
> > Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been done on
> make
> > a better release process. We expect to release more often thanks to that
> > effort done. Maybe each 2 month will be a good timeframe to do it.
> >
> > I think people like you is what we need this days. People playing,
> asking,
> > reporting, and as well helping others like you already did in SOF and
> other
> > channels. In this way we'll be able to make Royale bigger and better.
> This
> > is what make Open Source great that we can make it better thanks to all
> of
> > us.
> >
> > Last point. I think you have now the current knowledge to build from
> > scratch with repos. I can give you support if you want.
> > In that way you'll be able to develop the SDK if you want and submit more
> > PRs. Eventually, you can be a committer and part of the team if you show
> > things like motivation, knowledge on code base, activity,...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 23:06,  escribió:
> >
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh user on
> > > Apache Royale, hope it will help...
> > >
> > > The background :
> > >
> > > I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because for me
> > > it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do something that would
> > > have same render on all browser. Also no lost time on script config or
> > > something else, just launch FlexBuilder set sdk main folder path and
> > > play with it, no headaches ...a real dream for a dev guy. At beginning
> I
> > > learned Flex essentialy with "TourDeFlex" and "Component style
> > > explorer", and after with somes blogs and articles dealing with
> > > componant life cycle and other interessing stuff
> > >
> > > All my customer are happy because of the short time of devs. When Adobe
> > > announce end of life of flashplayer plugin in browser, solutions like
> > > Angular, React, etc, seems to me and other devs guys from my
> sourronding
> > > a back to the past. I play a little with these frameworks but for me
> > > it's not the solution : you need to know bootstrap, css, html,
> > > javascript,etc..., this is a real nightmare... and dev time would be
> > > multiply by 2 or 3 on projects even small or big ones. So we move ours
> > > app to Air for those which doesn't need the browser use.
> > >
> > > Discover of Royale:
> > >
> > > I discover Royale because of search for alternate solutions to quick
> > > make browser applications. As I remember, when I meet Michael Chaize 6
> > > or 7 years ago at Montpellier (France), he tells that FalconJS will be
> > > the futur to output Flex content to Javascript. Unfortunaly I thought
> it
> > > was death because the lack of communication on it. Now I reborn using
> > > Royale, play with it since 2 weeks when I have some time to learn more.
> > > For me, Apache Royale has a huge potential, unfortunaly not enougth
> > > know.
> > >
> > > At first looking, I throught that the sdk was far to do some usefull
> > > advances things, the Royale site seemed to me a little desert, lack of
> > > documentation, some page with empty content (this was my feeling, I
> > > know, how the fantastic works you do, and go on I'm fan). Looking at
> SOF
> > > on "Apache Royale" tag throught me that there were a very small
> > > community. But I discover TourDeJewel which made me want to know more
> > > about it and do a quick try. But for this I wanted to do a very quick
> > > dev test, I wanted to be 

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hey Guys,

I'm willing to try release very soon another version of Royale just with
fix for our issue with broken royale config. If it won't happen next week I
will probably do that next month which will be I think enough to have
proper release not only with that fix.

Anyway my question is a bit different. We are going to release Moonshine
where one of the update is that user will be able download latest release
of Apache Royale sdk trough our SDK Installer helper.

We were thinking about fixing manually royale-config and provide fixed sdk,
but does it break some lincenses if we do that ?

Thanks,
Piotr

pt., 11 paź 2019 o 19:56 Carlos Rovira  napisał(a):

> Hi Fred,
>
> many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there :)
>
> Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope other can
> talk about others.
>
> I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this kind of
> work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
> official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the community
> are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and others on the
> works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come soon! :)
>
> Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been done on make
> a better release process. We expect to release more often thanks to that
> effort done. Maybe each 2 month will be a good timeframe to do it.
>
> I think people like you is what we need this days. People playing, asking,
> reporting, and as well helping others like you already did in SOF and other
> channels. In this way we'll be able to make Royale bigger and better. This
> is what make Open Source great that we can make it better thanks to all of
> us.
>
> Last point. I think you have now the current knowledge to build from
> scratch with repos. I can give you support if you want.
> In that way you'll be able to develop the SDK if you want and submit more
> PRs. Eventually, you can be a committer and part of the team if you show
> things like motivation, knowledge on code base, activity,...
>
> Thanks!
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 23:06,  escribió:
>
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh user on
> > Apache Royale, hope it will help...
> >
> > The background :
> >
> > I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because for me
> > it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do something that would
> > have same render on all browser. Also no lost time on script config or
> > something else, just launch FlexBuilder set sdk main folder path and
> > play with it, no headaches ...a real dream for a dev guy. At beginning I
> > learned Flex essentialy with "TourDeFlex" and "Component style
> > explorer", and after with somes blogs and articles dealing with
> > componant life cycle and other interessing stuff
> >
> > All my customer are happy because of the short time of devs. When Adobe
> > announce end of life of flashplayer plugin in browser, solutions like
> > Angular, React, etc, seems to me and other devs guys from my sourronding
> > a back to the past. I play a little with these frameworks but for me
> > it's not the solution : you need to know bootstrap, css, html,
> > javascript,etc..., this is a real nightmare... and dev time would be
> > multiply by 2 or 3 on projects even small or big ones. So we move ours
> > app to Air for those which doesn't need the browser use.
> >
> > Discover of Royale:
> >
> > I discover Royale because of search for alternate solutions to quick
> > make browser applications. As I remember, when I meet Michael Chaize 6
> > or 7 years ago at Montpellier (France), he tells that FalconJS will be
> > the futur to output Flex content to Javascript. Unfortunaly I thought it
> > was death because the lack of communication on it. Now I reborn using
> > Royale, play with it since 2 weeks when I have some time to learn more.
> > For me, Apache Royale has a huge potential, unfortunaly not enougth
> > know.
> >
> > At first looking, I throught that the sdk was far to do some usefull
> > advances things, the Royale site seemed to me a little desert, lack of
> > documentation, some page with empty content (this was my feeling, I
> > know, how the fantastic works you do, and go on I'm fan). Looking at SOF
> > on "Apache Royale" tag throught me that there were a very small
> > community. But I discover TourDeJewel which made me want to know more
> > about it and do a quick try. But for this I wanted to do a very quick
> > dev test, I wanted to be able to run an helloword in about 15mins. I
> > search for a tutorial on how to quick start. The "Get Started" from
> > Royale site affraid me : help !!! I don't have time to read all theses
> > explanations to build an helloword... I was about to abandon the idea to
> > do an helloword until I find this :
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bak1zoAXSMg It could be shorter and if
> > configs files wer

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Fred,

many thanks for sharing all this with us. Very useful info there :)

Since there's many things, I'll just to comment on few and hope other can
talk about others.

I didn't know about that video. I think Angel should report this kind of
work here to show to the rest of community. Then we can share in
official social media accounts. I'll do it later. Others in the community
are working on videos I think there's at least 1 finished and others on the
works. Piotr can share more hopefully about that. Hope it come soon! :)

Current 0.9.6 version delays one year since many work has been done on make
a better release process. We expect to release more often thanks to that
effort done. Maybe each 2 month will be a good timeframe to do it.

I think people like you is what we need this days. People playing, asking,
reporting, and as well helping others like you already did in SOF and other
channels. In this way we'll be able to make Royale bigger and better. This
is what make Open Source great that we can make it better thanks to all of
us.

Last point. I think you have now the current knowledge to build from
scratch with repos. I can give you support if you want.
In that way you'll be able to develop the SDK if you want and submit more
PRs. Eventually, you can be a committer and part of the team if you show
things like motivation, knowledge on code base, activity,...

Thanks!

Carlos



El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 23:06,  escribió:

> Hi Guys,
>
> I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh user on
> Apache Royale, hope it will help...
>
> The background :
>
> I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because for me
> it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do something that would
> have same render on all browser. Also no lost time on script config or
> something else, just launch FlexBuilder set sdk main folder path and
> play with it, no headaches ...a real dream for a dev guy. At beginning I
> learned Flex essentialy with "TourDeFlex" and "Component style
> explorer", and after with somes blogs and articles dealing with
> componant life cycle and other interessing stuff
>
> All my customer are happy because of the short time of devs. When Adobe
> announce end of life of flashplayer plugin in browser, solutions like
> Angular, React, etc, seems to me and other devs guys from my sourronding
> a back to the past. I play a little with these frameworks but for me
> it's not the solution : you need to know bootstrap, css, html,
> javascript,etc..., this is a real nightmare... and dev time would be
> multiply by 2 or 3 on projects even small or big ones. So we move ours
> app to Air for those which doesn't need the browser use.
>
> Discover of Royale:
>
> I discover Royale because of search for alternate solutions to quick
> make browser applications. As I remember, when I meet Michael Chaize 6
> or 7 years ago at Montpellier (France), he tells that FalconJS will be
> the futur to output Flex content to Javascript. Unfortunaly I thought it
> was death because the lack of communication on it. Now I reborn using
> Royale, play with it since 2 weeks when I have some time to learn more.
> For me, Apache Royale has a huge potential, unfortunaly not enougth
> know.
>
> At first looking, I throught that the sdk was far to do some usefull
> advances things, the Royale site seemed to me a little desert, lack of
> documentation, some page with empty content (this was my feeling, I
> know, how the fantastic works you do, and go on I'm fan). Looking at SOF
> on "Apache Royale" tag throught me that there were a very small
> community. But I discover TourDeJewel which made me want to know more
> about it and do a quick try. But for this I wanted to do a very quick
> dev test, I wanted to be able to run an helloword in about 15mins. I
> search for a tutorial on how to quick start. The "Get Started" from
> Royale site affraid me : help !!! I don't have time to read all theses
> explanations to build an helloword... I was about to abandon the idea to
> do an helloword until I find this :
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bak1zoAXSMg It could be shorter and if
> configs files were in a link it would be great. This video is for my
> personnal case why succes to do an helloword and wanted to more and more
> dig on Apache Royale. Without this video perhaps I would go away from
> Royale.
>
> Now :
>
> - Will I use Royale to convert big applications I have done ?
>
> Honestly, I don't know yet because I have more to learn, and some
> aspects like Datagrid, itemRenderer, video play are unknow for me now.
> (I don't know if it's right working, but I will test it)
>
> - Will I use Royale to make new browser content ?
>
> Yes ! Yes ! Certainly, all the mains components seems to be here (I just
> have difficult with scrollable Datagrid that I didn't succes to use and
> I didn't try performance with big number of lines like 6000 lines). I
> don't think I loose my time learning Royale because mains cont

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[contact]

Hi Guys, 

I would share my experience and feelings as a new and fresh user on
Apache Royale, hope it will help... 

The background : 

I'm a Flex developper since about 10 years. I love it because for me
it's (was...for flashplayer) the fastest way to do something that would
have same render on all browser. Also no lost time on script config or
something else, just launch FlexBuilder set sdk main folder path and
play with it, no headaches ...a real dream for a dev guy. At beginning I
learned Flex essentialy with "TourDeFlex" and "Component style
explorer", and after with somes blogs and articles dealing with
componant life cycle and other interessing stuff 

All my customer are happy because of the short time of devs. When Adobe
announce end of life of flashplayer plugin in browser, solutions like
Angular, React, etc, seems to me and other devs guys from my sourronding
a back to the past. I play a little with these frameworks but for me
it's not the solution : you need to know bootstrap, css, html,
javascript,etc..., this is a real nightmare... and dev time would be
multiply by 2 or 3 on projects even small or big ones. So we move ours
app to Air for those which doesn't need the browser use. 

Discover of Royale: 

I discover Royale because of search for alternate solutions to quick
make browser applications. As I remember, when I meet Michael Chaize 6
or 7 years ago at Montpellier (France), he tells that FalconJS will be
the futur to output Flex content to Javascript. Unfortunaly I thought it
was death because the lack of communication on it. Now I reborn using
Royale, play with it since 2 weeks when I have some time to learn more.
For me, Apache Royale has a huge potential, unfortunaly not enougth
know. 

At first looking, I throught that the sdk was far to do some usefull
advances things, the Royale site seemed to me a little desert, lack of
documentation, some page with empty content (this was my feeling, I
know, how the fantastic works you do, and go on I'm fan). Looking at SOF
on "Apache Royale" tag throught me that there were a very small
community. But I discover TourDeJewel which made me want to know more
about it and do a quick try. But for this I wanted to do a very quick
dev test, I wanted to be able to run an helloword in about 15mins. I
search for a tutorial on how to quick start. The "Get Started" from
Royale site affraid me : help !!! I don't have time to read all theses
explanations to build an helloword... I was about to abandon the idea to
do an helloword until I find this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bak1zoAXSMg It could be shorter and if
configs files were in a link it would be great. This video is for my
personnal case why succes to do an helloword and wanted to more and more
dig on Apache Royale. Without this video perhaps I would go away from
Royale. 

Now : 

- Will I use Royale to convert big applications I have done ? 

Honestly, I don't know yet because I have more to learn, and some
aspects like Datagrid, itemRenderer, video play are unknow for me now.
(I don't know if it's right working, but I will test it) 

- Will I use Royale to make new browser content ? 

Yes ! Yes ! Certainly, all the mains components seems to be here (I just
have difficult with scrollable Datagrid that I didn't succes to use and
I didn't try performance with big number of lines like 6000 lines). I
don't think I loose my time learning Royale because mains contributors
like you guys take care about questions from other users and efforts to
do your best, 

- Will I tell around me to use Royale  ? 

Yes ! as soon I will show them what I have done with 

My others feelings, issues and thinkings: 

- Royale seems to me easy to use after do a first try and understanding
the difference between all library (js, j, mx, etc...), and concept like
beads. I like to be able to compile without have to make big change in
config files and without spend my time on setting paths config. I don't
really know what's happen when I clic on debug button and I don't really
want to know except if it's necessary. I discover that using browser
tools while debuging is a quick way to lookup css style in code. 

- sometimes I don't know where to put beads (beads dealing with
databindings or css does it global scope or not ...) 

- I see some reading on "reflection" (when using mx I beleve) but I
don't really know what is it and if i's important or not 

- sometimes I do a mix of j(jewel) and js(basic) in mxml but I don't
know if it's a good practice or not. It seems it's working except for
layouts 

- It isn't clear for me why there are 2 versions of SDK. One To create
JavaScript applications only and the other (JavaScript + Flash) . Why
need to create Flash application as we can't use it after 2020 ? Does it
because the possibility to make Air apps ? Or the possibility to use a
swc as a library in javascript ? I will dig this later... 

- I don't know how components lifecycle are working to try to optimize
my code 

- are all th

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Alex Harui]

I know this isn't the last post on the thread, and I echo the sentiment of 
others that we want to know what problems folks are running into getting 
started with Royale.  Meanwhile, back to the technical issue.

Josh is mostly right.  I don't think folks test the nightly -js package from 
the royale-asjs build, they probably test the -js package from the 
royale-asjs_jsonly build which is built differently, but is not released.  It 
is mainly there to test that you can build from sources without the Adode bits. 
 But when we release, we release the packages from a royale-asjs build.  Things 
like config files get generated differently and we didn't catch that.  Once I 
get the royale-asjs build running on the new CI server I will look into adding 
a test to validate that the config files from both runs are the same (or 
similar enough).

Meanwhile, it would be great to get a few folks to verify what I think is the 
simplest workaround.  I know we've asked folks to edit their royale-config.xml 
but there is always a chance you might make a mistake editing the file.

I was able to workaround the issue on my Mac using the released -js package 
(not from NPM, but should be the same) by doing:
0) Open command prompt/Terminal window
1) Change directory to the royale-asjs folder in the package
2) Run:  echo playerglobal.version=11.7 >local.properties
3) Run:  ant create-config

This should work on Windows as well.

It would be great if some others can verify these steps work for them and get a 
volunteer to update the online release notes 
https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Release-Notes-0.9.6 with various 
ways to workaround the problems.  IMO, there are actually two problems.  The 
config files should have had their target-player updated but didn't.

HTH,
-Alex

On 10/9/19, 3:34 PM, "Josh Tynjala"  wrote:

You were probably using the JS-only version of 0.9.4. As I said, the
JS-only version does not require Ant or npm.

You're not missing any new requirements/dependencies that were added
between 0.9.4 and 0.9.6. *The JS-only version of 0.9.6 is simply broken.*
Something in the build went wrong, and we failed to discover it during the
release process. If I were to guess, it's probably because nightly builds
were always working correctly, and we didn't do enough manual testing of
the release candidate. Anyway, this is obviously a critical issue that we
need to get fixed ASAP.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 



On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:21 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> I recently had a hard drive crash, so I have a new hard drive without many
> past artifacts, a virgin system. I was using 0.9.4 in Moonshine before the
> crash without, as far as I know, any Ant or npm magic. Have things changed
> significantly between that release and this one?
>
> <
> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Dwebmail&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5072457c2e7143c15e7008d74d08c883%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062572487121918&sdata=q0%2BZjlowfJQ5ZJkWpRRIPvu0H43L641ckvHExdm0bjQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> Virus-free.
> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.avast.com&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5072457c2e7143c15e7008d74d08c883%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062572487121918&sdata=sRRaHTJgu0t0ZVhvJ5IkcLreTogSm%2B5Pp%2BJ30HRITxY%3D&reserved=0
> <
> 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Dwebmail&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5072457c2e7143c15e7008d74d08c883%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062572487121918&sdata=q0%2BZjlowfJQ5ZJkWpRRIPvu0H43L641ckvHExdm0bjQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:
>
> > Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> > entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> > order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
> >
> > The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> > typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> > possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like 
Moonshine
> > supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> > after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvio

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Carlos Rovira]

Hi Richard (and others in the same wagon),

I only can say one thing: If you're a former Flex user, I encourage you to
not give up and try to get your path with Royale. I think it can be
difficult to start, but at this point (6 months after your latest try). I
think is worth it and we are in good shape. This days others like Fred or
Dankishands are active asking and going forward. I think they are a good
example of people trying this days and finding roadblocks but asking as
well in a very good way to help us help them to solve it.

I think the final prize deserve the effort :)

Just my 2 :)



El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 9:00, Richard Hirstle (<
richa...@designercollection.com.au>) escribió:

> Hi Piotr
>
> Last time would be a good 6 months ago. I didn’t ask for help but I know
> you all would
> have been very helpful if I had - I see you doing so week in week out.
>
> We are using Angular for new work but still have a number of existing apps
> we need
> to port over,  re - write or convert to air apps before the end of 2020.
>
> I am so keen to to see Royale work and gain acceptance not least because
> of all the work you have all put into it. My point was not so much for my
> sake
> but to the wider issue of all the others that I am sure must give it a go,
> fail and walk
> away to something else.
>
> It is always so hard to step into the shoes of someone who is used to the
> simple plug and play
> set up of Flex to see what you need to do make it that easy, but for it to
> gain the acceptance
> and traction it deserves I agree with Andrew that we need to try.
>
> Cheers
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> Richard Hirstle
> Managing Director
>
>
> Ozone Interactive
> PO Box 1108, Nairne SA 5252
>
>
> t: 08 8188 0342
>
>
>
> www.designercollection.com.au
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10 October 2019 at 4:04:27 pm, Piotr Zarzycki (
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hey Richard,
>
> When you were trying Royale - did you ask for help on dev list or in
> private?
>
> I agree that at the beginning earlier it was a problem to start. Now that
> barrier is a bit lower. If you need any help you can ask here or in
> private
> we are happy to help and get you move forward.
>
> Thanks,
> Piotr
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:10 AM Richard Hirstle 
> wrote:
>
> > Well said Andrew - couldn’t agree more.
> >
> > I am a long time Flex developer (back to the beta) and have tried
> > many times to get started with Royale, so that we can move all our
> existing
> > apps over, but have fallen at the first hurdle every time.
> >
> > We have now given up and are moving most over to Angular - but still
> > have high hopes for Royale.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > --
> > Richard Hirstle
> > Sent with Airmail
> >
> > On 10 October 2019 at 8:10:44 am, Andrew Wetmore (cottag...@gmail.com)
> > wrote:
> >
> > Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> > entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> > order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
> >
> > The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> > typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> > possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like
> Moonshine
> > supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> > after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those
> > developing
> > Royale but not to the world at large.
> >
> > Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that
> of
> > many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> >
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
> > > dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
>
> >
> > >
> > > What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned
> > on
> > > this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
> > >
> > > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
> > >
> > > I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask
> to
> > > download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest
> > way
> > > for a new user to get started.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC 
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> > > > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
> > > 

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Harbs]

Hearing from new users what the roadblocks are, is very useful. To me, Royale 
feels very plug and play, but I know it well. It’s hard to see the roadblocks 
to new users when you have been involved for a long time.

Thinking back to the days I was learning Flex, I think it was easy to learn it 
because:
1. Flex Builder (or Flash Builder — depending when you started with it) was 
fully integrated. The new project wizards were very helpful.
2. Flex in a Week was very useful to me to learn the concepts. I remember going 
through Flex in a Week while I was in the hospital with a relative many years 
ago…
3. There were lots of blog posts and example code for many common use cases.

What do you think the most important point are for us to make Royale more 
accessible?

Thanks,
Harbs

> On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:12 AM, Richard Hirstle 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Piotr 
> 
> Last time would be a good 6 months ago. I didn’t ask for help but I know you 
> all would  
> have been very helpful if I had - I see you doing so week in week out. 
> 
> We are using Angular for new work but still have a number of existing apps we 
> need 
> to port over,  re - write or convert to air apps before the end of 2020. 
> 
> I am so keen to to see Royale work and gain acceptance not least because 
> of all the work you have all put into it. My point was not so much for my 
> sake 
> but to the wider issue of all the others that I am sure must give it a go, 
> fail and walk 
> away to something else. 
> 
> It is always so hard to step into the shoes of someone who is used to the 
> simple plug and play 
> set up of Flex to see what you need to do make it that easy, but for it to 
> gain the acceptance 
> and traction it deserves I agree with Andrew that we need to try. 
> 
> Cheers 
> 
> Richard 
> 
> Richard Hirstle
> Managing Director
> 
> 
> Ozone Interactive
> PO Box 1108, Nairne SA 5252
> 
> 
> t: 08 8188 0342
> 
> 
> 
> www.designercollection.com.au
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On 10 October 2019 at 4:04:27 pm, Piotr Zarzycki (piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com) 
> wrote:
> 
> Hey Richard,  
> 
> When you were trying Royale - did you ask for help on dev list or in  
> private?  
> 
> I agree that at the beginning earlier it was a problem to start. Now that  
> barrier is a bit lower. If you need any help you can ask here or in private  
> we are happy to help and get you move forward.  
> 
> Thanks,  
> Piotr  
> 
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:10 AM Richard Hirstle  wrote:  
> 
>> Well said Andrew - couldn’t agree more.  
>> 
>> I am a long time Flex developer (back to the beta) and have tried  
>> many times to get started with Royale, so that we can move all our existing  
>> apps over, but have fallen at the first hurdle every time.  
>> 
>> We have now given up and are moving most over to Angular - but still  
>> have high hopes for Royale.  
>> 
>> Richard  
>> 
>> --  
>> Richard Hirstle  
>> Sent with Airmail  
>> 
>> On 10 October 2019 at 8:10:44 am, Andrew Wetmore (cottag...@gmail.com)  
>> wrote:  
>> 
>> Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,  
>> entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in  
>> order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.  
>> 
>> The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the  
>> typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should  
>> possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine  
>> supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only  
>> after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those  
>> developing  
>> Royale but not to the world at large.  
>> 
>> Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of  
>> many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.  
>> 
>> Andrew  
>> 
>> <  
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>   
>> 
>> Virus-free.  
>> www.avast.com  
>> <  
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>   
>> 
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala   
>> wrote:  
>> 
>>> The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional  
>>> dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
>>   
>> 
>>> 
>>> What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned  
>> on  
>>> this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):  
>>> 
>>> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale  
>>> 
>>> I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to  
>>> download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest  
>> way  
>>> for a new user to get started.  
>>> 
>>> --  
>>> Josh Tynjala  
>>> Bowler Hat LLC 

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Richard Hirstle]

Hi Piotr 

Last time would be a good 6 months ago. I didn’t ask for help but I know you 
all would  
have been very helpful if I had - I see you doing so week in week out. 

We are using Angular for new work but still have a number of existing apps we 
need 
to port over,  re - write or convert to air apps before the end of 2020. 

I am so keen to to see Royale work and gain acceptance not least because 
of all the work you have all put into it. My point was not so much for my sake 
but to the wider issue of all the others that I am sure must give it a go, fail 
and walk 
away to something else. 

It is always so hard to step into the shoes of someone who is used to the 
simple plug and play 
set up of Flex to see what you need to do make it that easy, but for it to gain 
the acceptance 
and traction it deserves I agree with Andrew that we need to try. 

Cheers 

Richard 

Richard Hirstle
Managing Director


Ozone Interactive
PO Box 1108, Nairne SA 5252


t: 08 8188 0342


   
www.designercollection.com.au

 

 


On 10 October 2019 at 4:04:27 pm, Piotr Zarzycki (piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com) 
wrote:

Hey Richard,  

When you were trying Royale - did you ask for help on dev list or in  
private?  

I agree that at the beginning earlier it was a problem to start. Now that  
barrier is a bit lower. If you need any help you can ask here or in private  
we are happy to help and get you move forward.  

Thanks,  
Piotr  

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:10 AM Richard Hirstle  wrote:  

> Well said Andrew - couldn’t agree more.  
>  
> I am a long time Flex developer (back to the beta) and have tried  
> many times to get started with Royale, so that we can move all our existing  
> apps over, but have fallen at the first hurdle every time.  
>  
> We have now given up and are moving most over to Angular - but still  
> have high hopes for Royale.  
>  
> Richard  
>  
> --  
> Richard Hirstle  
> Sent with Airmail  
>  
> On 10 October 2019 at 8:10:44 am, Andrew Wetmore (cottag...@gmail.com)  
> wrote:  
>  
> Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,  
> entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in  
> order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.  
>  
> The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the  
> typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should  
> possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine  
> supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only  
> after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those  
> developing  
> Royale but not to the world at large.  
>  
> Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of  
> many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.  
>  
> Andrew  
>  
> <  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>   
>  
> Virus-free.  
> www.avast.com  
> <  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>   
>  
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  
>  
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala   
> wrote:  
>  
> > The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional  
> > dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output 
>  
>  
> >  
> > What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned  
> on  
> > this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):  
> >  
> > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale  
> >  
> > I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to  
> > download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest  
> way  
> > for a new user to get started.  
> >  
> > --  
> > Josh Tynjala  
> > Bowler Hat LLC   
> >  
> >  
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore   
> wrote:  
> >  
> > > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that  
> > > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > <  
> >  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>   
>  
> > Virus-free.  
> > > www.avast.com  
> > > <  
> >  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>   
>  
> > >  
> > > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  
> > >  
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala   
>  
> > > wrote:  
> > >  
> > >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add  
> the  
> > >> Adobe  
> > >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.  
> > >>  
> > >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from  
> > >> Adobe.  
> > >> It's just a placeholder to

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Richard Hirstle]

Hi Piotr

Last time would be a good 6 months ago. I didn’t ask for help but I know you 
all would 
have been very helpful if I had - I see you doing so week in week out.

We are using Angular for new work but still have a number of existing apps we 
need
to port over,  re - write or convert to air apps before the end of 2020.

I am so keen to to see Royale work and gain acceptance not least because
of all the work you have all put into it. My point was not so much for my sake
but to the wider issue of all the others that I am sure must give it a go, fail 
and walk
away to something else.

It is always so hard to step into the shoes of someone who is used to the 
simple plug and play
set up of Flex to see what you need to do make it that easy, but for it to gain 
the acceptance
and traction it deserves I agree with Andrew that we need to try.

Cheers

Richard



Richard Hirstle
Managing Director


Ozone Interactive
PO Box 1108, Nairne SA 5252


t: 08 8188 0342


   
www.designercollection.com.au

 

 


On 10 October 2019 at 4:04:27 pm, Piotr Zarzycki (piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com) 
wrote:

Hey Richard,  

When you were trying Royale - did you ask for help on dev list or in  
private?  

I agree that at the beginning earlier it was a problem to start. Now that  
barrier is a bit lower. If you need any help you can ask here or in private  
we are happy to help and get you move forward.  

Thanks,  
Piotr  

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:10 AM Richard Hirstle  wrote:  

> Well said Andrew - couldn’t agree more.  
>  
> I am a long time Flex developer (back to the beta) and have tried  
> many times to get started with Royale, so that we can move all our existing  
> apps over, but have fallen at the first hurdle every time.  
>  
> We have now given up and are moving most over to Angular - but still  
> have high hopes for Royale.  
>  
> Richard  
>  
> --  
> Richard Hirstle  
> Sent with Airmail  
>  
> On 10 October 2019 at 8:10:44 am, Andrew Wetmore (cottag...@gmail.com)  
> wrote:  
>  
> Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,  
> entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in  
> order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.  
>  
> The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the  
> typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should  
> possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine  
> supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only  
> after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those  
> developing  
> Royale but not to the world at large.  
>  
> Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of  
> many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.  
>  
> Andrew  
>  
> <  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>   
>  
> Virus-free.  
> www.avast.com  
> <  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>   
>  
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  
>  
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala   
> wrote:  
>  
> > The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional  
> > dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output 
>  
>  
> >  
> > What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned  
> on  
> > this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):  
> >  
> > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale  
> >  
> > I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to  
> > download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest  
> way  
> > for a new user to get started.  
> >  
> > --  
> > Josh Tynjala  
> > Bowler Hat LLC   
> >  
> >  
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore   
> wrote:  
> >  
> > > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that  
> > > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > <  
> >  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>   
>  
> > Virus-free.  
> > > www.avast.com  
> > > <  
> >  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>   
>  
> > >  
> > > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  
> > >  
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala   
>  
> > > wrote:  
> > >  
> > >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add  
> the  
> > >> Adobe  
> > >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.  
> > >>  
> > >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from  
> > >> Adobe.  
> > >> It's just a placeholder to make certai

Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hey Richard,

When you were trying Royale - did you ask for help on dev list or in
private?

I agree that at the beginning earlier it was a problem to start. Now that
barrier is a bit lower. If you need any help you can ask here or in private
we are happy to help and get you move forward.

Thanks,
Piotr

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:10 AM Richard Hirstle  wrote:

> Well said Andrew - couldn’t agree more.
>
> I am a long time Flex developer (back to the beta) and have tried
> many times to get started with Royale, so that we can move all our existing
> apps over,  but have fallen at the first hurdle every time.
>
> We have now given up and are moving most over to Angular  - but still
> have high hopes for Royale.
>
> Richard
>
> --
> Richard Hirstle
> Sent with Airmail
>
> On 10 October 2019 at 8:10:44 am, Andrew Wetmore (cottag...@gmail.com)
> wrote:
>
> Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
>
> The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine
> supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those
> developing
> Royale but not to the world at large.
>
> Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of
> many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.
>
> Andrew
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
> > The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
> > dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
>
> >
> > What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned
> on
> > this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
> >
> > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
> >
> > I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
> > download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest
> way
> > for a new user to get started.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> > > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
> > >
> > >
> > > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>
> > Virus-free.
> > > www.avast.com
> > > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>
> > >
> > > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala 
>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add
> the
> > >> Adobe
> > >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
> > >>
> > >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
> > >> Adobe.
> > >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just
> a
> > >> copy of js.swc.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Josh Tynjala
> > >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale
> > JS-SWF
> > >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either
> JS
> > or
> > >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> > >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
> > >> Download
> > >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only
> > version,
> > >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
> > >> >
> > >> > <
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>
> > >> > >
> > >> > Virus-free.
> > >> > www.avast.com
> > >> > <
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>
> > >> > >
> > >> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui 
>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create
> release
> > >> > > artifacts, since we want to prod

Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hey Andrew,

I recommend you make small workaround.
1) Take again JS only version of Royale 0.9.6
2) Open framework/royale-config.xml
3) Remove everything what is inside tag library-path
4) Try rebuild

Thanks,
Piotr

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:21 AM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> I recently had a hard drive crash, so I have a new hard drive without many
> past artifacts, a virgin system. I was using 0.9.4 in Moonshine before the
> crash without, as far as I know, any Ant or npm magic. Have things changed
> significantly between that release and this one?
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:
>
> > Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> > entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> > order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
> >
> > The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> > typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> > possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine
> > supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> > after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those
> developing
> > Royale but not to the world at large.
> >
> > Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of
> > many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> > <#m_-6424551647352680386_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
> >> dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
> >>
> >> What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned on
> >> this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
> >>
> >> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
> >>
> >> I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
> >> download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest way
> >> for a new user to get started.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> >> > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> >> Virus-free.
> >> > www.avast.com
> >> > <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the
> >> >> Adobe
> >> >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
> >> >>
> >> >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
> >> >> Adobe.
> >> >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's
> just a
> >> >> copy of js.swc.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale
> >> JS-SWF
> >> >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either
> >> JS or
> >> >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> >> >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
> >> >> Download
> >> >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only
> >> version,
> >> >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > Virus-free.
> >> >> > www.avast.com
> >> >> > <
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Richard Hirstle]

Well said Andrew - couldn’t agree more.

I am a long time Flex developer (back to the beta) and have tried
many times to get started with Royale, so that we can move all our existing
apps over,  but have fallen at the first hurdle every time.

We have now given up and are moving most over to Angular  - but still
have high hopes for Royale.

Richard

-- 
Richard Hirstle
Sent with Airmail

On 10 October 2019 at 8:10:44 am, Andrew Wetmore (cottag...@gmail.com) wrote:

Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,  
entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in  
order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.  

The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the  
typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should  
possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine  
supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only  
after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those developing  
Royale but not to the world at large.  

Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of  
many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.  

Andrew  


  
Virus-free.  
www.avast.com  

  
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala   
wrote:  

> The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional  
> dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:  
>  
>  
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output 
>  
>  
> What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned on  
> this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):  
>  
> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale  
>  
> I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to  
> download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest way  
> for a new user to get started.  
>  
> --  
> Josh Tynjala  
> Bowler Hat LLC   
>  
>  
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:  
>  
> > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that  
> > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?  
> >  
> >  
> > <  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>   
> Virus-free.  
> > www.avast.com  
> > <  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>   
> >  
> > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  
> >  
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala   
> > wrote:  
> >  
> >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the  
> >> Adobe  
> >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.  
> >>  
> >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from  
> >> Adobe.  
> >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just a  
> >> copy of js.swc.  
> >>  
> >> --  
> >> Josh Tynjala  
> >> Bowler Hat LLC   
> >>  
> >>  
> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore   
> >> wrote:  
> >>  
> >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale  
> JS-SWF  
> >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either JS  
> or  
> >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains  
> >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.  
> >> Download  
> >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only  
> version,  
> >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.  
> >> >  
> >> > <  
> >> >  
> >>  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>   
> >> > >  
> >> > Virus-free.  
> >> > www.avast.com  
> >> > <  
> >> >  
> >>  
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>   
> >> > >  
> >> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>  
> >> >  
> >> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui   
> >> > wrote:  
> >> >  
> >> > > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release  
> >> > > artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one  
> >> run), a  
> >> > > different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with  
> >> some  
> >> > > files before packaging the js-only artifacts. It could be that the  
> >> > > jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in  
> >> > > royale-config.xml. That means we've had this bug for months and  
> >> nobody  
> >> > > noticed until now.  
> >> > >  
> >> > >

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Josh Tynjala]

You were probably using the JS-only version of 0.9.4. As I said, the
JS-only version does not require Ant or npm.

You're not missing any new requirements/dependencies that were added
between 0.9.4 and 0.9.6. *The JS-only version of 0.9.6 is simply broken.*
Something in the build went wrong, and we failed to discover it during the
release process. If I were to guess, it's probably because nightly builds
were always working correctly, and we didn't do enough manual testing of
the release candidate. Anyway, this is obviously a critical issue that we
need to get fixed ASAP.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:21 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> I recently had a hard drive crash, so I have a new hard drive without many
> past artifacts, a virgin system. I was using 0.9.4 in Moonshine before the
> crash without, as far as I know, any Ant or npm magic. Have things changed
> significantly between that release and this one?
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:
>
> > Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> > entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> > order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
> >
> > The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> > typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> > possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine
> > supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> > after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those
> developing
> > Royale but not to the world at large.
> >
> > Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of
> > many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> > <#m_-6424551647352680386_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
> >> dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
> >>
> >> What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned on
> >> this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
> >>
> >> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
> >>
> >> I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
> >> download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest way
> >> for a new user to get started.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> >> > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> >> Virus-free.
> >> > www.avast.com
> >> > <
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> >
> >> > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the
> >> >> Adobe
> >> >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
> >> >>
> >> >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
> >> >> Adobe.
> >> >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's
> just a
> >> >> copy of js.swc.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale
> >> JS-SWF
> >> >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either
> >> JS or
> >> >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> >> >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
> >> >> Download
> >> >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only
> >> version,
> >> >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it i

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Andrew Wetmore]

I recently had a hard drive crash, so I have a new hard drive without many
past artifacts, a virgin system. I was using 0.9.4 in Moonshine before the
crash without, as far as I know, any Ant or npm magic. Have things changed
significantly between that release and this one?


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:40 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
>
> The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine
> supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those developing
> Royale but not to the world at large.
>
> Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of
> many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-6424551647352680386_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
>> The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
>> dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
>>
>> What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned on
>> this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
>>
>> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
>>
>> I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
>> download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest way
>> for a new user to get started.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
>> > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
>> >
>> >
>> > <
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> Virus-free.
>> > www.avast.com
>> > <
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> >
>> > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the
>> >> Adobe
>> >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
>> >>
>> >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
>> >> Adobe.
>> >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just a
>> >> copy of js.swc.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Josh Tynjala
>> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale
>> JS-SWF
>> >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either
>> JS or
>> >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
>> >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
>> >> Download
>> >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only
>> version,
>> >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
>> >> >
>> >> > <
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> >> > >
>> >> > Virus-free.
>> >> > www.avast.com
>> >> > <
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> >> > >
>> >> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release
>> >> > > artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one
>> >> run), a
>> >> > > different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with
>> >> some
>> >> > > files before packaging the js-only artifacts.  It could be that the
>> >> > > jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in
>> >> > > royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug fo

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Andrew Wetmore]

That would be fine. I am stuck, evidently, at something in the 0.9.6
release of the JS-only version being broken.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:09 PM Josh Tynjala 
wrote:

> Node/npm is pretty normal prerequisite for most JS development these days,
> but I understand your point.
>
> Ideally, we should be encouraging developers to start with the JS-only
> version, which doesn't require any of those special dependencies (other
> than Java, which is necessary to run the compiler).
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:41 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:
>
> > Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> > entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> > order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
> >
> > The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> > typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> > possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine
> > supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> > after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those
> developing
> > Royale but not to the world at large.
> >
> > Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of
> > many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
> > > dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
> > >
> > > What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned
> on
> > > this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
> > >
> > > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
> > >
> > > I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
> > > download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest
> way
> > > for a new user to get started.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC 
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> > > > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > > Virus-free.
> > > > www.avast.com
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > >
> > > > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala <
> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add
> the
> > > >> Adobe
> > > >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
> > > >>
> > > >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
> > > >> Adobe.
> > > >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's
> just
> > a
> > > >> copy of js.swc.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Josh Tynjala
> > > >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale
> > > JS-SWF
> > > >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either
> > JS
> > > or
> > > >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> > > >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
> > > >> Download
> > > >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only
> > > version,
> > > >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > <
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > Virus-free.
> > > >> > www.avast.com
> > > >> > <
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Josh Tynjala]

Node/npm is pretty normal prerequisite for most JS development these days,
but I understand your point.

Ideally, we should be encouraging developers to start with the JS-only
version, which doesn't require any of those special dependencies (other
than Java, which is necessary to run the compiler).

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:41 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
> entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
> order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.
>
> The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
> typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
> possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine
> supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
> after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those developing
> Royale but not to the world at large.
>
> Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of
> many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.
>
> Andrew
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
> > The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
> > dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
> >
> > What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned on
> > this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
> >
> > https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
> >
> > I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
> > download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest way
> > for a new user to get started.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> > > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
> > >
> > >
> > > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> > Virus-free.
> > > www.avast.com
> > > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the
> > >> Adobe
> > >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
> > >>
> > >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
> > >> Adobe.
> > >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just
> a
> > >> copy of js.swc.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Josh Tynjala
> > >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale
> > JS-SWF
> > >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either
> JS
> > or
> > >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> > >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
> > >> Download
> > >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only
> > version,
> > >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
> > >> >
> > >> > <
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >> > >
> > >> > Virus-free.
> > >> > www.avast.com
> > >> > <
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >> > >
> > >> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui  >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release
> > >> > > artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one
> > >> run), a
> > >> > > different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck
> with
> > >> some
> > >> > > files before packaging the js-only artifacts.  It could be that
> the
> > >> > > jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in
> > >> > > royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug for months and
> > >> nobody
> > >> > > noticed until now.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -Alex
> > >> > >
> > >> 

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Andrew Wetmore]

Instructions that require Ant or npm are not, in my humble opinion,
entry-level instructions. I should not have to be an SDK constructor in
order to use Royale to build the apps I want to build.

The instructions need to be a TON clearer, and more obvious from the
typical entry points where a new user would encounter Royale. We should
possibly also add qualifiers to any statements that an IDE like Moonshine
supports Royale. It does not support Royale as we deliver it, but only
after it has been tweaked by processes that are obvious to those developing
Royale but not to the world at large.

Sorry if I sound irked, but consider that my reaction may mirror that of
many who want to try Royale out but trip over the starting line.

Andrew


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:52 PM Josh Tynjala 
wrote:

> The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
> dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output
>
> What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned on
> this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):
>
> https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale
>
> I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
> download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest way
> for a new user to get started.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:
>
> > Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> > anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
> >
> >
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> > <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the
> >> Adobe
> >> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
> >>
> >> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
> >> Adobe.
> >> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just a
> >> copy of js.swc.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Tynjala
> >> Bowler Hat LLC 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale
> JS-SWF
> >> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either JS
> or
> >> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> >> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
> >> Download
> >> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only
> version,
> >> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
> >> >
> >> > <
> >> >
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> > >
> >> > Virus-free.
> >> > www.avast.com
> >> > <
> >> >
> >>
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >> > >
> >> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release
> >> > > artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one
> >> run), a
> >> > > different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with
> >> some
> >> > > files before packaging the js-only artifacts.  It could be that the
> >> > > jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in
> >> > > royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug for months and
> >> nobody
> >> > > noticed until now.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Alex
> >> > >
> >> > > On 10/9/19, 9:38 AM, "Josh Tynjala" 
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > It looks like the Ant target that updates the library-path for
> the
> >> > > JS-only
> >> > > build is called tweak-for-jsonly. Copied here for convenience:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2Fasn0i&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=7h3ZHxgGsfZqP8kE22amKQYDr7%2BNyQa7EpoG86147uU%3D&reserved=0
> >> > >
> >> > > I see that it has unless="env.AIR_HOME", which means that this
> >> target
> >> > > is
> >> > >

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Josh Tynjala]

The main royale-asjs README mentions the Adobe stuff as optional
dependencies, but the instructions seem to be aimed at contributors:

https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs#additional-prerequisites-for-swf-output

What a non-contributor user is expected to do appears to be mentioned on
this page (it requires running the InstallAdobeSDKs.xml Ant script):

https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/get-started/download-royale

I recall that if you install the npm version of Royale, it will ask to
download the Adobe dependencies for you. That's probably the easiest way
for a new user to get started.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:44 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that
> anywhere in the instructions where a new user would run into it?
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-3106823410389824051_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala 
> wrote:
>
>> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the
>> Adobe
>> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
>>
>> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from
>> Adobe.
>> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just a
>> copy of js.swc.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Tynjala
>> Bowler Hat LLC 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale JS-SWF
>> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either JS or
>> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
>> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
>> Download
>> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only version,
>> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
>> >
>> > <
>> >
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> > >
>> > Virus-free.
>> > www.avast.com
>> > <
>> >
>> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
>> > >
>> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release
>> > > artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one
>> run), a
>> > > different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with
>> some
>> > > files before packaging the js-only artifacts.  It could be that the
>> > > jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in
>> > > royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug for months and
>> nobody
>> > > noticed until now.
>> > >
>> > > -Alex
>> > >
>> > > On 10/9/19, 9:38 AM, "Josh Tynjala" 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It looks like the Ant target that updates the library-path for the
>> > > JS-only
>> > > build is called tweak-for-jsonly. Copied here for convenience:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2Fasn0i&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=7h3ZHxgGsfZqP8kE22amKQYDr7%2BNyQa7EpoG86147uU%3D&reserved=0
>> > >
>> > > I see that it has unless="env.AIR_HOME", which means that this
>> target
>> > > is
>> > > skipped if the AIR_HOME environment variable is set. With that in
>> > > mind, I'm
>> > > guessing that AIR_HOME needs to be set for the js-swf build, but
>> > > cleared
>> > > for the js-only build.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Josh Tynjala
>> > > Bowler Hat LLC <
>> > >
>> >
>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=Ih2P7zf2c%2BLPn5ktks02EE7k6s24RKcabVem7VqjWeg%3D&reserved=0
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Piotr Zarzycki <
>> > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Guys,
>> > > >
>> > > > It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK.
>> Andrew
>> > > raised
>> > > > in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World
>> > > project. I
>> > > > tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get
>> > > following
>> > > > error [1].
>> > > > I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again -
>> this
>> > > time it
>> > > > went fine.
>> > > >
>> > > > JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section
>> > >  -
>> > > > list of swc. - Those sw

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Andrew Wetmore]

Thanks @Josh Tynjala  . Do we say that anywhere
in the instructions where a new user would run into it?


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 5:27 PM Josh Tynjala 
wrote:

> If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the Adobe
> dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.
>
> The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from Adobe.
> It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just a
> copy of js.swc.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC 
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:
>
> > I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale JS-SWF
> > version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either JS or
> > Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> > playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc.
> Download
> > playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only version,
> > playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
> >
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avast.com
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release
> > > artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one
> run), a
> > > different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with
> some
> > > files before packaging the js-only artifacts.  It could be that the
> > > jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in
> > > royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug for months and nobody
> > > noticed until now.
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 10/9/19, 9:38 AM, "Josh Tynjala" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like the Ant target that updates the library-path for the
> > > JS-only
> > > build is called tweak-for-jsonly. Copied here for convenience:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2Fasn0i&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=7h3ZHxgGsfZqP8kE22amKQYDr7%2BNyQa7EpoG86147uU%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > I see that it has unless="env.AIR_HOME", which means that this
> target
> > > is
> > > skipped if the AIR_HOME environment variable is set. With that in
> > > mind, I'm
> > > guessing that AIR_HOME needs to be set for the js-swf build, but
> > > cleared
> > > for the js-only build.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Tynjala
> > > Bowler Hat LLC <
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=Ih2P7zf2c%2BLPn5ktks02EE7k6s24RKcabVem7VqjWeg%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Piotr Zarzycki <
> > > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > >
> > > > It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK.
> Andrew
> > > raised
> > > > in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World
> > > project. I
> > > > tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get
> > > following
> > > > error [1].
> > > > I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again -
> this
> > > time it
> > > > went fine.
> > > >
> > > > JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section
> > >  -
> > > > list of swc. - Those swc doesn't exists in JS-only.
> > > >
> > > > Fragment of config
> > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >  libs/Basic.swc
> > > > >  libs/Binding.swc
> > > > >  libs/Charts.swc
> > > > >  libs/Collections.swc
> > > > >  libs/Core.swc
> > > > > 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JS-only nightly build of 0.9.7 - doesn't contains in that section
> > > anything
> > > >
> > > > >   
> > > > >   
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2F2lgvk&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=IebVohnQGkmg%2BAO2RJCS2LRTdP3LQE0NoQ%2BUt7xlOJI%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > >   

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Josh Tynjala]

If you downloaded the js-swf binary distribution, you need to add the Adobe
dependencies manually. We cannot distribute them.

The playerglobal.swc in the js-only version is not the real one from Adobe.
It's just a placeholder to make certain IDEs happy. I think it's just a
copy of js.swc.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:16 PM Andrew Wetmore  wrote:

> I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale JS-SWF
> version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either JS or
> Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
> playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc. Download
> playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only version,
> playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.
>
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui 
> wrote:
>
> > When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release
> > artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one run), a
> > different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with some
> > files before packaging the js-only artifacts.  It could be that the
> > jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in
> > royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug for months and nobody
> > noticed until now.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 10/9/19, 9:38 AM, "Josh Tynjala"  wrote:
> >
> > It looks like the Ant target that updates the library-path for the
> > JS-only
> > build is called tweak-for-jsonly. Copied here for convenience:
> >
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2Fasn0i&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=7h3ZHxgGsfZqP8kE22amKQYDr7%2BNyQa7EpoG86147uU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > I see that it has unless="env.AIR_HOME", which means that this target
> > is
> > skipped if the AIR_HOME environment variable is set. With that in
> > mind, I'm
> > guessing that AIR_HOME needs to be set for the js-swf build, but
> > cleared
> > for the js-only build.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Tynjala
> > Bowler Hat LLC <
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=Ih2P7zf2c%2BLPn5ktks02EE7k6s24RKcabVem7VqjWeg%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Piotr Zarzycki <
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK. Andrew
> > raised
> > > in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World
> > project. I
> > > tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get
> > following
> > > error [1].
> > > I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again - this
> > time it
> > > went fine.
> > >
> > > JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section
> >  -
> > > list of swc. - Those swc doesn't exists in JS-only.
> > >
> > > Fragment of config
> > >
> > > > 
> > > >  libs/Basic.swc
> > > >  libs/Binding.swc
> > > >  libs/Charts.swc
> > > >  libs/Collections.swc
> > > >  libs/Core.swc
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > JS-only nightly build of 0.9.7 - doesn't contains in that section
> > anything
> > >
> > > >   
> > > >   
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2F2lgvk&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=IebVohnQGkmg%2BAO2RJCS2LRTdP3LQE0NoQ%2BUt7xlOJI%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=BmbfQaY1AjgUQk61TOlDZqRi1jWSJWDFaxgzaFiw1c4%3D&reserved=0
> > > <
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=BmbfQaY1AjgUQk61TOlDZqRi1jWSJWDFaxgzaFiw1c4%3D&reserved=0
> > >*

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Andrew Wetmore]

I wiped out the previous project and tried again with the Royale JS-SWF
version. When I try to compile the project in Moonshine for either JS or
Flash, I see this error message: "This SDK does not contains
playerglobal.swc in frameworks\libs\player\11.7\playerglobal.swc. Download
playerglobal here". When I look in the package for the JS-only version,
playerglobal is there. I do not see it in the JS_SWF version.


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM Alex Harui  wrote:

> When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release
> artifacts, since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one run), a
> different target called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with some
> files before packaging the js-only artifacts.  It could be that the
> jsonly-package needs updating now that SWF SWCs are listed in
> royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug for months and nobody
> noticed until now.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 10/9/19, 9:38 AM, "Josh Tynjala"  wrote:
>
> It looks like the Ant target that updates the library-path for the
> JS-only
> build is called tweak-for-jsonly. Copied here for convenience:
>
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2Fasn0i&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=7h3ZHxgGsfZqP8kE22amKQYDr7%2BNyQa7EpoG86147uU%3D&reserved=0
>
> I see that it has unless="env.AIR_HOME", which means that this target
> is
> skipped if the AIR_HOME environment variable is set. With that in
> mind, I'm
> guessing that AIR_HOME needs to be set for the js-swf build, but
> cleared
> for the js-only build.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbowlerhat.dev&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=Ih2P7zf2c%2BLPn5ktks02EE7k6s24RKcabVem7VqjWeg%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Piotr Zarzycki <
> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK. Andrew
> raised
> > in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World
> project. I
> > tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get
> following
> > error [1].
> > I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again - this
> time it
> > went fine.
> >
> > JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section
>  -
> > list of swc. - Those swc doesn't exists in JS-only.
> >
> > Fragment of config
> >
> > > 
> > >  libs/Basic.swc
> > >  libs/Binding.swc
> > >  libs/Charts.swc
> > >  libs/Collections.swc
> > >  libs/Core.swc
> > > 
> >
> >
> > JS-only nightly build of 0.9.7 - doesn't contains in that section
> anything
> >
> > >   
> > >   
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2F2lgvk&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=IebVohnQGkmg%2BAO2RJCS2LRTdP3LQE0NoQ%2BUt7xlOJI%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> >
> > Piotr Zarzycki
> >
> > Patreon: *
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=BmbfQaY1AjgUQk61TOlDZqRi1jWSJWDFaxgzaFiw1c4%3D&reserved=0
> > <
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=BmbfQaY1AjgUQk61TOlDZqRi1jWSJWDFaxgzaFiw1c4%3D&reserved=0
> >*
> >
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew Wetmore

http://cottage14.blogspot.com/






Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Alex Harui]

When you build with AIR_HOME (which is required to create release artifacts, 
since we want to produce both jsonly and js-swf in one run), a different target 
called "jsonly-package" run and tries to muck with some files before packaging 
the js-only artifacts.  It could be that the jsonly-package needs updating now 
that SWF SWCs are listed in royale-config.xml.  That means we've had this bug 
for months and nobody noticed until now.

-Alex

On 10/9/19, 9:38 AM, "Josh Tynjala"  wrote:

It looks like the Ant target that updates the library-path for the JS-only
build is called tweak-for-jsonly. Copied here for convenience:


https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2Fasn0i&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=7h3ZHxgGsfZqP8kE22amKQYDr7%2BNyQa7EpoG86147uU%3D&reserved=0

I see that it has unless="env.AIR_HOME", which means that this target is
skipped if the AIR_HOME environment variable is set. With that in mind, I'm
guessing that AIR_HOME needs to be set for the js-swf build, but cleared
for the js-only build.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 



On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Piotr Zarzycki 
wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK. Andrew raised
> in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World project. I
> tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get following
> error [1].
> I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again - this time it
> went fine.
>
> JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section   -
> list of swc. - Those swc doesn't exists in JS-only.
>
> Fragment of config
>
> > 
> >  libs/Basic.swc
> >  libs/Binding.swc
> >  libs/Charts.swc
> >  libs/Collections.swc
> >  libs/Core.swc
> > 
>
>
> JS-only nightly build of 0.9.7 - doesn't contains in that section anything
>
> >   
> >   
>
>
> [1] 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2F2lgvk&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=IebVohnQGkmg%2BAO2RJCS2LRTdP3LQE0NoQ%2BUt7xlOJI%3D&reserved=0
>
> Thanks,
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: 
*https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C972794372a8a4037148008d74cd72cc9%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637062359364655836&sdata=BmbfQaY1AjgUQk61TOlDZqRi1jWSJWDFaxgzaFiw1c4%3D&reserved=0
> 
*
>

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Josh Tynjala]

It looks like the Ant target that updates the library-path for the JS-only
build is called tweak-for-jsonly. Copied here for convenience:

https://paste.apache.org/asn0i

I see that it has unless="env.AIR_HOME", which means that this target is
skipped if the AIR_HOME environment variable is set. With that in mind, I'm
guessing that AIR_HOME needs to be set for the js-swf build, but cleared
for the js-only build.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Piotr Zarzycki 
wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK. Andrew raised
> in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World project. I
> tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get following
> error [1].
> I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again - this time it
> went fine.
>
> JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section   -
> list of swc. - Those swc doesn't exists in JS-only.
>
> Fragment of config
>
> > 
> >  libs/Basic.swc
> >  libs/Binding.swc
> >  libs/Charts.swc
> >  libs/Collections.swc
> >  libs/Core.swc
> > 
>
>
> JS-only nightly build of 0.9.7 - doesn't contains in that section anything
>
> >   
> >   
>
>
> [1] https://paste.apache.org/2lgvk
>
> Thanks,
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>

Re: Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Josh Tynjala]

I just installed @apache-royale/royale-js from npm, and I'm seeing the same
errors.

--
Josh Tynjala
Bowler Hat LLC 


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Piotr Zarzycki 
wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK. Andrew raised
> in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World project. I
> tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get following
> error [1].
> I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again - this time it
> went fine.
>
> JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section   -
> list of swc. - Those swc doesn't exists in JS-only.
>
> Fragment of config
>
> > 
> >  libs/Basic.swc
> >  libs/Binding.swc
> >  libs/Charts.swc
> >  libs/Collections.swc
> >  libs/Core.swc
> > 
>
>
> JS-only nightly build of 0.9.7 - doesn't contains in that section anything
>
> >   
> >   
>
>
> [1] https://paste.apache.org/2lgvk
>
> Thanks,
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> *
>

Broken royale-config in JS only build of released Apache Royale SDK 0.9.6

[Piotr Zarzycki]

Hi Guys,

It looks like we have broken royale-config in released SDK. Andrew raised
in Moonshine GitHub issue that he couldn't build Hello World project. I
tried Moonshine and downloaded JS-only version of SDK. I get following
error [1].
I downloaded JS-SWF version and tried compile project again - this time it
went fine.

JS-only version of released 0.9.6 contains in section   -
list of swc. - Those swc doesn't exists in JS-only.

Fragment of config

> 
>  libs/Basic.swc
>  libs/Binding.swc
>  libs/Charts.swc
>  libs/Collections.swc
>  libs/Core.swc
> 


JS-only nightly build of 0.9.7 - doesn't contains in that section anything

>   
>   


[1] https://paste.apache.org/2lgvk

Thanks,
-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
*