Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
I see your point, but I would rather have the package name describe the output format instead of one of the runtimes that can handle that format. If we output web assembly someday, I would want to use -wasm instead of listing one or more of the runtimes that can handle that. My 2 cents, -Alex On 12/17/17, 10:26 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Dec 17, 2017 9:44 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > >Why "Air" and not "SWF"? > >Not sure I understand your logic. >-Alex > > >SWF is generally associated with Flash Player which is going to go away >soon. > >AIR makes it more obvious that we will support AIR runtimes. > >Unless of course I am wrong. > >Thanks, >Om > > > >On 12/17/17, 12:25 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >Muppirala" wrote: > >>I'm making progress on this front. >> >>I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out and >>figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. >> >>Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of >>apache-royale-with-swf? >> >>Thanks, >>Om >> >>On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui >>wrote: >> >>> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. >>> >>> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: >>> >>> sudo npm install -g >>> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >>>e >>>xbuild.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe >>>. >>>com%7C1a183217be2b4743851a08d54527d25f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee >>>1 >>>%7C0%7C0%7C636490959691371246&sdata=XeiC%2FfOB7dBp0GO0LLYLN5lV%2F6aDrmwB >>>X >>>5ITo9FwA1g%3D&reserved=0 >>> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil >>> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >>> >>> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download >>>and >>> unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be >>>something >>> about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did >>> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >>> Muppirala" wrote: >>> >>> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui >>> >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an >>> >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages >>> >>contain >>> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and >>>some >>> >> slightly different settings. >>> >> >>> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and >>>settings >>> >>so >>> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. >>> >> >>> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. >>> >> >>> >> -Alex >>> >> >>> > >>> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to >>> >know >>> >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather >>>have >>> >the >>> >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install >>>scripts >>> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then >>>download >>> >external dependencies if needed. >>> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without >>>having >>> >to >>> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. >>> > >>> >Thanks, >>> >Om >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >>> >> Muppirala" >>>wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and >>> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. >>> >> >That makes it much clearer. >>> >> > >>> >> >Thanks, >>> >> >Om >>> >> > >>> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui > > >>> >> >wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building >>>it >>> >>and >>> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running >>>"ant >>> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. >>>I >>> >>think >>> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the >>>-jsonly- >>> >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing >>>to >>> >>see >>> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against >>>the >>> >>other >>> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe >>>stuff, >>> >> >> which might need tuning. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly >>> >>builds >>> >> >>so >>> >> >> you could do something like: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> npm install >>> >> >>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >>> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach >>> e >>> >> . >>> >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com >>> >> %7C5cf18485a >>> >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >>> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 >>> >> >87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% >>> >> 3D&r >>> >> >>eserved=
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
On Dec 17, 2017 9:44 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: Why "Air" and not "SWF"? Not sure I understand your logic. -Alex SWF is generally associated with Flash Player which is going to go away soon. AIR makes it more obvious that we will support AIR runtimes. Unless of course I am wrong. Thanks, Om On 12/17/17, 12:25 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >I'm making progress on this front. > >I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out and >figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. > >Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of >apache-royale-with-swf? > >Thanks, >Om > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui >wrote: > >> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. >> >> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: >> >> sudo npm install -g >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefle >>xbuild.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe. >>com%7C1a183217be2b4743851a08d54527d25f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1 >>%7C0%7C0%7C636490959691371246&sdata=XeiC%2FfOB7dBp0GO0LLYLN5lV%2F6aDrmwBX >>5ITo9FwA1g%3D&reserved=0 >> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil >> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >> >> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download >>and >> unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be >>something >> about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did >> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> Muppirala" wrote: >> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui >> >wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an >> >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages >> >>contain >> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and >>some >> >> slightly different settings. >> >> >> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and >>settings >> >>so >> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. >> >> >> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. >> >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> > >> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to >> >know >> >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather have >> >the >> >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install >>scripts >> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then >>download >> >external dependencies if needed. >> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without >>having >> >to >> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. >> > >> >Thanks, >> >Om >> > >> > >> >> >> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> >> Muppirala" >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and >> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. >> >> >That makes it much clearer. >> >> > >> >> >Thanks, >> >> >Om >> >> > >> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui >>> > >> >> >wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building >>it >> >>and >> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. >> >> >> >> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running >>"ant >> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I >> >>think >> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the >>-jsonly- >> >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing >>to >> >>see >> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the >> >>other >> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe >>stuff, >> >> >> which might need tuning. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly >> >>builds >> >> >>so >> >> >> you could do something like: >> >> >> >> >> >> npm install >> >> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach >> e >> >> . >> >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com >> >> %7C5cf18485a >> >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 >> >> 87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% >> >> 3D&r >> >> >>eserved=0 >> >> >> >> >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. >>Right >> >>now >> >> >> it is: >> >> >> >> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin >> >> >> >> >> >> A while back I suggested: >> >> >> >> >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >> >> >> >> >> >> Another option is: >> >> >> >> >> >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
Why "Air" and not "SWF"? Not sure I understand your logic. -Alex On 12/17/17, 12:25 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >I'm making progress on this front. > >I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out and >figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. > >Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of >apache-royale-with-swf? > >Thanks, >Om > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui >wrote: > >> OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. >> >> FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: >> >> sudo npm install -g >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefle >>xbuild.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe. >>com%7C1a183217be2b4743851a08d54527d25f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1 >>%7C0%7C0%7C636490959691371246&sdata=XeiC%2FfOB7dBp0GO0LLYLN5lV%2F6aDrmwBX >>5ITo9FwA1g%3D&reserved=0 >> asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil >> d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >> >> The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download >>and >> unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be >>something >> about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did >> nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> Muppirala" wrote: >> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui >> >wrote: >> > >> >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an >> >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages >> >>contain >> >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and >>some >> >> slightly different settings. >> >> >> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and >>settings >> >>so >> >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. >> >> >> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. >> >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> > >> >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to >> >know >> >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather have >> >the >> >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install >>scripts >> >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then >>download >> >external dependencies if needed. >> >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without >>having >> >to >> >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. >> > >> >Thanks, >> >Om >> > >> > >> >> >> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> >> Muppirala" >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and >> >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. >> >> >That makes it much clearer. >> >> > >> >> >Thanks, >> >> >Om >> >> > >> >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui >>> > >> >> >wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building >>it >> >>and >> >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. >> >> >> >> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running >>"ant >> >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I >> >>think >> >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the >>-jsonly- >> >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing >>to >> >>see >> >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the >> >>other >> >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe >>stuff, >> >> >> which might need tuning. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly >> >>builds >> >> >>so >> >> >> you could do something like: >> >> >> >> >> >> npm install >> >> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >> http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach >> e >> >> . >> >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com >> >> %7C5cf18485a >> >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >> >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 >> >> 87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% >> >> 3D&r >> >> >>eserved=0 >> >> >> >> >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. >>Right >> >>now >> >> >> it is: >> >> >> >> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin >> >> >> >> >> >> A while back I suggested: >> >> >> >> >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >> >> >> >> >> >> Another option is: >> >> >> >> >> >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >> >> >> >> >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package >> >>name >> >> >> for the package with SWF support. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >>
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
I thought that naming if npm is the same as binary package. If I was wrong I'm sorry and let's move on. :) Piotr On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 10:01 OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Piotr Zarzycki < > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Om, > > > > In the other thread there is a proposition about package naming. Alex and > > me propose something. > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > I thought that was for naming the binary artifact? This is for naming the > npm package. Did you mean the same thing? > > Thanks, > Om > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 09:26 OmPrakash Muppirala > > wrote: > > > > > I'm making progress on this front. > > > > > > I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out > and > > > figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. > > > > > > Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of > > > apache-royale-with-swf? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Om > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui > > > wrote: > > > > > > > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. > > > > > > > > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: > > > > > > > > sudo npm install -g > > > > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale- > > > > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil > > > > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > > > > > > > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download > > and > > > > unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be > > something > > > > about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI > did > > > > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > > > > Muppirala" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an > > > > >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages > > > > >>contain > > > > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and > > some > > > > >> slightly different settings. > > > > >> > > > > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and > > settings > > > > >>so > > > > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. > > > > >> > > > > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. > > > > >> > > > > >> -Alex > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need > to > > > > >know > > > > >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather > > have > > > > >the > > > > >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install > > > scripts > > > > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then > > > download > > > > >external dependencies if needed. > > > > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without > > having > > > > >to > > > > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. > > > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > >Om > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > > > > >> Muppirala" > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and > > > > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. > > > > >> >That makes it much clearer. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >Thanks, > > > > >> >Om > > > > >> > > > > > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui > > > > > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is > building > > > it > > > > >>and > > > > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and > running > > > "ant > > > > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. > > I > > > > >>think > > > > >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the > > > -jsonly- > > > > >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further > testing > > > to > > > > >>see > > > > >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against > > the > > > > >>other > > > > >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe > > > stuff, > > > > >> >> which might need tuning. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the > nightly > > > > >>builds > > > > >> >>so > > > > >> >> you could do something like: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> npm install > > > > >> > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > > > http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach > > > > e > > > > >> . > > > > >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com > > > > >> %7C5cf18485a > > > > >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > > > > >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 > > > > >> > > > >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Piotr Zarzycki wrote: > Hi Om, > > In the other thread there is a proposition about package naming. Alex and > me propose something. > > Thanks, > Piotr > I thought that was for naming the binary artifact? This is for naming the npm package. Did you mean the same thing? Thanks, Om > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 09:26 OmPrakash Muppirala > wrote: > > > I'm making progress on this front. > > > > I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out and > > figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. > > > > Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of > > apache-royale-with-swf? > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui > > wrote: > > > > > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. > > > > > > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: > > > > > > sudo npm install -g > > > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale- > > > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil > > > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > > > > > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download > and > > > unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be > something > > > about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did > > > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -Alex > > > > > > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > > > Muppirala" > wrote: > > > > > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an > > > >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages > > > >>contain > > > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and > some > > > >> slightly different settings. > > > >> > > > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and > settings > > > >>so > > > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. > > > >> > > > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. > > > >> > > > >> -Alex > > > >> > > > > > > > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to > > > >know > > > >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather > have > > > >the > > > >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install > > scripts > > > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then > > download > > > >external dependencies if needed. > > > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without > having > > > >to > > > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >Om > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > > > >> Muppirala" > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and > > > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. > > > >> >That makes it much clearer. > > > >> > > > > >> >Thanks, > > > >> >Om > > > >> > > > > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui > > > > > > > > >> >wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building > > it > > > >>and > > > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running > > "ant > > > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. > I > > > >>think > > > >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the > > -jsonly- > > > >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing > > to > > > >>see > > > >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against > the > > > >>other > > > >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe > > stuff, > > > >> >> which might need tuning. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly > > > >>builds > > > >> >>so > > > >> >> you could do something like: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> npm install > > > >> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > > http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach > > > e > > > >> . > > > >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com > > > >> %7C5cf18485a > > > >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > > > >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 > > > >> > > >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% > > > >> 3D&r > > > >> >>eserved=0 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. > > Right > > > >>now > > > >> >> it is: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > > > >> >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin > > > >> >> > > > >> >> A while back I suggested: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > > > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > > > >> >> >
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
Hi Om, In the other thread there is a proposition about package naming. Alex and me propose something. Thanks, Piotr On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 09:26 OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > I'm making progress on this front. > > I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out and > figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. > > Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of > apache-royale-with-swf? > > Thanks, > Om > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui > wrote: > > > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. > > > > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: > > > > sudo npm install -g > > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale- > > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil > > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > > > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download and > > unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be something > > about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did > > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. > > > > Thanks, > > -Alex > > > > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > > Muppirala" wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui > > >wrote: > > > > > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an > > >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages > > >>contain > > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some > > >> slightly different settings. > > >> > > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings > > >>so > > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. > > >> > > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. > > >> > > >> -Alex > > >> > > > > > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to > > >know > > >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather have > > >the > > >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install > scripts > > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then > download > > >external dependencies if needed. > > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without having > > >to > > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Om > > > > > > > > >> > > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > > >> Muppirala" > wrote: > > >> > > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and > > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. > > >> >That makes it much clearer. > > >> > > > >> >Thanks, > > >> >Om > > >> > > > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui > > > > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building > it > > >>and > > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. > > >> >> > > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running > "ant > > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I > > >>think > > >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the > -jsonly- > > >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing > to > > >>see > > >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the > > >>other > > >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe > stuff, > > >> >> which might need tuning. > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly > > >>builds > > >> >>so > > >> >> you could do something like: > > >> >> > > >> >> npm install > > >> > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > > http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach > > e > > >> . > > >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com > > >> %7C5cf18485a > > >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > > >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 > > >> > >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% > > >> 3D&r > > >> >>eserved=0 > > >> >> > > >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. > Right > > >>now > > >> >> it is: > > >> >> > > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > > >> >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin > > >> >> > > >> >> A while back I suggested: > > >> >> > > >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > > >> >> > > >> >> Another option is: > > >> >> > > >> >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > > >> >> > > >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package > > >>name > > >> >> for the package with SWF support. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Thoughts? > > >> >> -Alex > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> >The package on the CI server
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
I'm making progress on this front. I will get the apache-royale npm package first. Let's test this out and figure out the next steps for the one with swf version. Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of apache-royale-with-swf? Thanks, Om On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. > > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: > > sudo npm install -g > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale- > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download and > unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be something > about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > Muppirala" wrote: > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui > >wrote: > > > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an > >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages > >>contain > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some > >> slightly different settings. > >> > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings > >>so > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. > >> > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. > >> > >> -Alex > >> > > > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to > >know > >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather have > >the > >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install scripts > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then download > >external dependencies if needed. > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without having > >to > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. > > > >Thanks, > >Om > > > > > >> > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >> Muppirala" wrote: > >> > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. > >> >That makes it much clearer. > >> > > >> >Thanks, > >> >Om > >> > > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui > > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building it > >>and > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. > >> >> > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I > >>think > >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the -jsonly- > >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing to > >>see > >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the > >>other > >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff, > >> >> which might need tuning. > >> >> > >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly > >>builds > >> >>so > >> >> you could do something like: > >> >> > >> >> npm install > >> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach > e > >> . > >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com > >> %7C5cf18485a > >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 > >> >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% > >> 3D&r > >> >>eserved=0 > >> >> > >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. Right > >>now > >> >> it is: > >> >> > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > >> >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin > >> >> > >> >> A while back I suggested: > >> >> > >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > >> >> > >> >> Another option is: > >> >> > >> >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > >> >> > >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package > >>name > >> >> for the package with SWF support. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Thoughts? > >> >> -Alex > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I > >> >>messed up > >> >> >the Ant script. Looking into it now. > >> >> > > >> >> >-Alex > >> >> > > >> >> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >> >> >Muppirala" > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" > >> >>wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >> >> >>Muppirala" > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>>On D
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
OK, we can stick with two standalone packages. FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran: sudo npm install -g http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download and unpacking. I don't know if it is supposed to or not. Could be something about the CI server that does not return progress info. So the UI did nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install. Thanks, -Alex On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui >wrote: > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an >> "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages >>contain >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some >> slightly different settings. >> >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings >>so >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. >> >> I don't think I care which way we go on that. >> >> -Alex >> > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to >know >the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather have >the >release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install scripts >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then download >external dependencies if needed. >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without having >to >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. > >Thanks, >Om > > >> >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> Muppirala" wrote: >> >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. >> >That makes it much clearer. >> > >> >Thanks, >> >Om >> > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui >> >wrote: >> > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building it >>and >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. >> >> >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I >>think >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the -jsonly- >> >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing to >>see >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the >>other >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff, >> >> which might need tuning. >> >> >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly >>builds >> >>so >> >> you could do something like: >> >> >> >> npm install >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach e >> . >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com >> %7C5cf18485a >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 >> >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% >> 3D&r >> >>eserved=0 >> >> >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. Right >>now >> >> it is: >> >> >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin >> >> >> >> A while back I suggested: >> >> >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >> >> >> >> Another option is: >> >> >> >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >> >> >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package >>name >> >> for the package with SWF support. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >> >> >> >> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I >> >>messed up >> >> >the Ant script. Looking into it now. >> >> > >> >> >-Alex >> >> > >> >> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> >> >Muppirala" >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> >> >>Muppirala" >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the >>CI >> >> >>>server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>npm install >> >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >> >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >> >> >>>e >> >> >>>x >> >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% >> >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= >> >> >>>0 >> >> >>>2 >> >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 >> >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a >> >> >>>7 >> >> >>>b >> >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an > "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages contain > mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some > slightly different settings. > > An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings so > to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. > > I don't think I care which way we go on that. > > -Alex > The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to know the logic of where the additional files should go. I would rather have the release build scripts contain all that logic. So, the npm install scripts would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact. Then download external dependencies if needed. This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without having to redo the logic in the npm installer scripts. Thanks, Om > > On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > Muppirala" wrote: > > >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and > >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. > >That makes it much clearer. > > > >Thanks, > >Om > > > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui > >wrote: > > > >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building it and > >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. > >> > >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant > >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I think > >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the -jsonly- > >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing to see > >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the other > >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff, > >> which might need tuning. > >> > >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly builds > >>so > >> you could do something like: > >> > >> npm install > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs.apache > . > >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com > %7C5cf18485a > >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 > >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls% > 3D&r > >>eserved=0 > >> > >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. Right now > >> it is: > >> > >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin > >> > >> A while back I suggested: > >> > >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > >> > >> Another option is: > >> > >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > >> > >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package name > >> for the package with SWF support. > >> > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> -Alex > >> > >> > >> > >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > >> > >> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I > >>messed up > >> >the Ant script. Looking into it now. > >> > > >> >-Alex > >> > > >> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >> >Muppirala" > wrote: > >> > > >> >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" > >>wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >> >>Muppirala" > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI > >> >>>server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: > >> >>> > >> >>>npm install > >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl > >> >>>e > >> >>>x > >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% > >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= > >> >>>0 > >> >>>2 > >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 > >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a > >> >>>7 > >> >>>b > >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& > >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE > >> >>>E > >> >>>Z > >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > >> >>> > >> >>>And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: > >> >>> > >> >>>npm install > >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl > >> >>>e > >> >>>x > >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% > >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= > >> >>>0 > >> >>>2 > >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 > >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a > >> >>>7 > >> >>>b > >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& > >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE > >> >>>E > >> >>>Z > >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 > >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an "add-on" instead of its own package. IOW, right now both packages contain mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some slightly different settings. An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings so to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages. I don't think I care which way we go on that. -Alex On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. >That makes it much clearer. > >Thanks, >Om > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui >wrote: > >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building it and >> should finish in 90 minutes or so. >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I think >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the -jsonly- >> package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing to see >> if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the other >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff, >> which might need tuning. >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly builds >>so >> you could do something like: >> >> npm install >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs.apache. >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5cf18485a >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364 >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls%3D&r >>eserved=0 >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. Right now >> it is: >> >> apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin >> >> A while back I suggested: >> >> apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >> >> Another option is: >> >> apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. >> apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package name >> for the package with SWF support. >> >> >> Thoughts? >> -Alex >> >> >> >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >> >> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I >>messed up >> >the Ant script. Looking into it now. >> > >> >-Alex >> > >> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> >Muppirala" wrote: >> > >> >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >> >>Muppirala" >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI >> >>>server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: >> >>> >> >>>npm install >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >> >>>e >> >>>x >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= >> >>>0 >> >>>2 >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a >> >>>7 >> >>>b >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE >> >>>E >> >>>Z >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >> >>> >> >>>And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: >> >>> >> >>>npm install >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >> >>>e >> >>>x >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= >> >>>0 >> >>>2 >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a >> >>>7 >> >>>b >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE >> >>>E >> >>>Z >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? >> >> >> >>No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier >>npm-flexjs >> >>code did. However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since >> >>other >> >>things it looks like it used to download are in the package >>(framework, >> >>falcon, swfobject). >> >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>-Alex >> >>> >> >> >> >>Sounds good. I will start working on this today. >> >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>Om >> > >> >>
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x. That makes it much clearer. Thanks, Om On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building it and > should finish in 90 minutes or so. > > You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant > release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I think > you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the -jsonly- > package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing to see > if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the other > -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff, > which might need tuning. > > I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly builds so > you could do something like: > > npm install http://s.apache.org/Royale090NightlyBuild > > But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. Right now > it is: > > apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin > > A while back I suggested: > > apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > > Another option is: > > apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. > apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. > > I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package name > for the package with SWF support. > > > Thoughts? > -Alex > > > > On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > > >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I messed up > >the Ant script. Looking into it now. > > > >-Alex > > > >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >Muppirala" wrote: > > > >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash > >>Muppirala" > >> wrote: > >> > >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" > wrote: > >>> > >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI > >>>server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: > >>> > >>>npm install > >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl > >>>e > >>>x > >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% > 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= > >>>0 > >>>2 > >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 > c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a > >>>7 > >>>b > >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& > sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE > >>>E > >>>Z > >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 > >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > >>> > >>>And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: > >>> > >>>npm install > >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl > >>>e > >>>x > >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs% > 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= > >>>0 > >>>2 > >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156 > c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a > >>>7 > >>>b > >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835& > sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE > >>>E > >>>Z > >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 > >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > >>> > >>> > >>>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? > >> > >>No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier npm-flexjs > >>code did. However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since > >>other > >>things it looks like it used to download are in the package (framework, > >>falcon, swfobject). > >> > >>Thanks, > >>-Alex > >>> > >> > >>Sounds good. I will start working on this today. > >> > >>Thanks, > >>Om > > > >
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
OK, I think I got the packaging fixed. The CI server is building it and should finish in 90 minutes or so. You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running "ant release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder. I think you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first. I only tried the -jsonly- package and it installed for me. I didn't do any further testing to see if the command-line scripts worked or not. If you run against the other -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe stuff, which might need tuning. I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly builds so you could do something like: npm install http://s.apache.org/Royale090NightlyBuild But before we do that, we should decide on the package names. Right now it is: apache-royale-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin A while back I suggested: apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. Another option is: apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support. apache-royale-0.9.0.bin The default package is JS only. I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package name for the package with SWF support. Thoughts? -Alex On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I messed up >the Ant script. Looking into it now. > >-Alex > >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >Muppirala" wrote: > >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >> >> >> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash >>Muppirala" >> wrote: >> >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >>> >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI >>>server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: >>> >>>npm install >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >>>e >>>x >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= >>>0 >>>2 >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a >>>7 >>>b >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE >>>E >>>Z >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >>> >>>And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: >>> >>>npm install >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl >>>e >>>x >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data= >>>0 >>>2 >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a >>>7 >>>b >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE >>>E >>>Z >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >>> >>> >>>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? >> >>No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier npm-flexjs >>code did. However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since >>other >>things it looks like it used to download are in the package (framework, >>falcon, swfobject). >> >>Thanks, >>-Alex >>> >> >>Sounds good. I will start working on this today. >> >>Thanks, >>Om >
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM. I think I messed up the Ant script. Looking into it now. -Alex On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > > > >On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" > wrote: > >>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >> >>I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI >>server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: >> >>npm install >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefle >>x >>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=0 >>2 >>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7 >>b >>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbEE >>Z >>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >> >>And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: >> >>npm install >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapachefle >>x >>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=0 >>2 >>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7 >>b >>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbEE >>Z >>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz >> >> >>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? > >No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier npm-flexjs >code did. However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since other >things it looks like it used to download are in the package (framework, >falcon, swfobject). > >Thanks, >-Alex >> > >Sounds good. I will start working on this today. > >Thanks, >Om
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > >I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI >server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: > >npm install >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheflex >build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=02 >%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbEEZ >WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > >And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: > >npm install >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheflex >build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=02 >%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbEEZ >WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > >Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier npm-flexjs code did. However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since other things it looks like it used to download are in the package (framework, falcon, swfobject). Thanks, -Alex > Sounds good. I will start working on this today. Thanks, Om
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > >I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI >server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: > >npm install >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheflex >build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=02 >%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbEEZ >WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > >And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: > >npm install >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapacheflex >build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=02 >%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbEEZ >WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0 >d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > >Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier npm-flexjs code did. However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff since other things it looks like it used to download are in the package (framework, falcon, swfobject). Thanks, -Alex >
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote: I did some reading about NPM this evening. I think that we can use NPM as a distribution server. It looked like in FlexJS, we still pulled all of the artifacts from the mirrors, but I don't think that is a requirement. Now that the current package bundles all 3 repos into a tarball, that artifact looks much more like an NPM tarball. I think we can push all of our bits to NPM's server and simply the node package, especially for the JSOnly package since it doesn't have to download anything. Also, according to what I read, we can support nightly builds by installing via a URL to the nightly package. I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: npm install http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: npm install http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well? Thanks, Om To install the nightly with SWF support. When we release, we will publish two packages. "royale" would be for JSOnly, "royale-swf" for SWF Support. Feel free to suggest different names. Thoughts? -Alex On 12/11/17, 4:57 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >I think I have the packaging scripts set up to package the 3 repos into a >single source package. The nightly builds for the past few days have been >churning out this new package. Folks should have noticed that the >IDE-compatible folder is now a royale-asjs subfolder in the binary >package. > >I'll be spending a bit more time on some final checks (like execute bits >on the scripts) but I think we're at the point where others should review >the package to see if they like it or not and report things that need >improvement. If we want to bake in NPM artifact generation into the >scripts, we should get going on that now. > >Once we get consensus that this package structure is the one we want to >release, the next thing to try is to create a release candidate. My >current thinking is to use Maven to generate its per-repo source packages >and alter the Ant script to grab the 3 packages and run the release script >in those packages. > >Constructive feedback welcome, >-Alex > >On 12/5/17, 11:42 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote: > >>Ok I will wait for your final push to develop. In any case it looks good >>till now. >> >>Once you update Readme I can make a build - I haven't done ant build for >>a >>while. >> >>Thanks, Piotr >> >>On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, 08:38 Alex Harui wrote: >> >>> Hi Piotr, >>> >>> I have all 3 feature/rename branches merged into the develop branch >>> locally. I'm not sure it is necessary to merge the other way first, >>> especially in royale-asjs because most of the changes were in the >>>compiler. >>> >>> I was going to push it tomorrow (for me) so I can babysit the CI >>>servers >>> if they don't pass since I haven't tested the merge on Windows (the CI >>> server has built and ran tests on Windows on feature/rename). >>> >>> I can hold off if folks want to do more testing on feature/rename >>>before >>> the merge to develop. >>> >>> Regarding Flash dependencies, I would like to see some folks use a >>>clean >>> machine or try to simulate a clean machine (by removing folders and >>> environment variables) and see if they can get the repos and build >>> everything, although that reminds me that I need to update the various >>> READMEs first. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 12/5/17, 11:19 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" >>>wrote: >>> >>> >Hi Alex, >>> > >>> >I did merge develop into rename for asjs repo locally, but not sure >>> >whether >>> >I can push it to the rename - let me know. >>> >Apart of that you have said that you need volunteers that check >>>whether >>> >there are still places with dependencies to Flash. - What do you mean >>>by >>> >that actually ? Do you mean making build on branches ? I did it by >>>maven >>> >but not sure whether it is sufficient. >>> > >>> >I did also use your rename branch with Moonshine and everything looks >>>ok. >>> > >>> >I have also discovered that in the following locations for all modules >>> >"frameworks\js\projects\BasicJS\target\" we have swc - probably it >>>should >>> >be excluded in the distribution package build for ant. >>> > >>> >Thanks, Piotr >>> > >>> >2017-12-03 12:53 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : >>> > >>> >> In that place I think we should have Wiki page called: "How to >>>download >>> >> IDE ready Royale framework" - or something similar. It should >>>describe >>> >>what >>> >> kind of package do we have and what people need to do in order to >>>have >>> >>SWF >>> >> output. >>> >> >>> >> I don't think we should have in the title word "binary package" - It >>> >> wasn't mean to me anything when I come up to
Re: NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
Hi Alex, that seems good to me, as we have this finished I'll be updating the website with final commands Thanks Carlos 2017-12-12 9:25 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui : > I did some reading about NPM this evening. I think that we can use NPM as > a distribution server. It looked like in FlexJS, we still pulled all of > the artifacts from the mirrors, but I don't think that is a requirement. > > Now that the current package bundles all 3 repos into a tarball, that > artifact looks much more like an NPM tarball. I think we can push all of > our bits to NPM's server and simply the node package, especially for the > JSOnly package since it doesn't have to download anything. > > Also, according to what I read, we can support nightly builds by > installing via a URL to the nightly package. > > I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI > server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: > > npm install > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale- > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: > > npm install > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale- > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz > > To install the nightly with SWF support. > > When we release, we will publish two packages. "royale" would be for > JSOnly, "royale-swf" for SWF Support. Feel free to suggest different > names. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > > On 12/11/17, 4:57 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: > > >I think I have the packaging scripts set up to package the 3 repos into a > >single source package. The nightly builds for the past few days have been > >churning out this new package. Folks should have noticed that the > >IDE-compatible folder is now a royale-asjs subfolder in the binary > >package. > > > >I'll be spending a bit more time on some final checks (like execute bits > >on the scripts) but I think we're at the point where others should review > >the package to see if they like it or not and report things that need > >improvement. If we want to bake in NPM artifact generation into the > >scripts, we should get going on that now. > > > >Once we get consensus that this package structure is the one we want to > >release, the next thing to try is to create a release candidate. My > >current thinking is to use Maven to generate its per-repo source packages > >and alter the Ant script to grab the 3 packages and run the release script > >in those packages. > > > >Constructive feedback welcome, > >-Alex > > > >On 12/5/17, 11:42 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote: > > > >>Ok I will wait for your final push to develop. In any case it looks good > >>till now. > >> > >>Once you update Readme I can make a build - I haven't done ant build for > >>a > >>while. > >> > >>Thanks, Piotr > >> > >>On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, 08:38 Alex Harui wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Piotr, > >>> > >>> I have all 3 feature/rename branches merged into the develop branch > >>> locally. I'm not sure it is necessary to merge the other way first, > >>> especially in royale-asjs because most of the changes were in the > >>>compiler. > >>> > >>> I was going to push it tomorrow (for me) so I can babysit the CI > >>>servers > >>> if they don't pass since I haven't tested the merge on Windows (the CI > >>> server has built and ran tests on Windows on feature/rename). > >>> > >>> I can hold off if folks want to do more testing on feature/rename > >>>before > >>> the merge to develop. > >>> > >>> Regarding Flash dependencies, I would like to see some folks use a > >>>clean > >>> machine or try to simulate a clean machine (by removing folders and > >>> environment variables) and see if they can get the repos and build > >>> everything, although that reminds me that I need to update the various > >>> READMEs first. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -Alex > >>> > >>> On 12/5/17, 11:19 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>> >Hi Alex, > >>> > > >>> >I did merge develop into rename for asjs repo locally, but not sure > >>> >whether > >>> >I can push it to the rename - let me know. > >>> >Apart of that you have said that you need volunteers that check > >>>whether > >>> >there are still places with dependencies to Flash. - What do you mean > >>>by > >>> >that actually ? Do you mean making build on branches ? I did it by > >>>maven > >>> >but not sure whether it is sufficient. > >>> > > >>> >I did also use your rename branch with Moonshine and everything looks > >>>ok. > >>> > > >>> >I have also discovered that in the following locations for all modules > >>> >"frameworks\js\projects\BasicJS\target\" we have swc - probably it > >>>should > >>> >be excluded in the distribution package build for ant. > >>> > > >>> >Thanks, Piotr > >>> > > >>> >2017-12-03 12:53 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki >: > >>> > > >>> >> In that place I think we should have Wiki page called: "How to > >>>download > >>> >> IDE ready Royale framework" - or som
NPM for Royale (was Re: Repos and Releases)
I did some reading about NPM this evening. I think that we can use NPM as a distribution server. It looked like in FlexJS, we still pulled all of the artifacts from the mirrors, but I don't think that is a requirement. Now that the current package bundles all 3 repos into a tarball, that artifact looks much more like an NPM tarball. I think we can push all of our bits to NPM's server and simply the node package, especially for the JSOnly package since it doesn't have to download anything. Also, according to what I read, we can support nightly builds by installing via a URL to the nightly package. I just pushed changes to see if it can work. We'll see after the CI server builds it. In theory, you will be able to run: npm install http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz And it should install the JSOnlu package. Alternatively, you run: npm install http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz To install the nightly with SWF support. When we release, we will publish two packages. "royale" would be for JSOnly, "royale-swf" for SWF Support. Feel free to suggest different names. Thoughts? -Alex On 12/11/17, 4:57 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: >I think I have the packaging scripts set up to package the 3 repos into a >single source package. The nightly builds for the past few days have been >churning out this new package. Folks should have noticed that the >IDE-compatible folder is now a royale-asjs subfolder in the binary >package. > >I'll be spending a bit more time on some final checks (like execute bits >on the scripts) but I think we're at the point where others should review >the package to see if they like it or not and report things that need >improvement. If we want to bake in NPM artifact generation into the >scripts, we should get going on that now. > >Once we get consensus that this package structure is the one we want to >release, the next thing to try is to create a release candidate. My >current thinking is to use Maven to generate its per-repo source packages >and alter the Ant script to grab the 3 packages and run the release script >in those packages. > >Constructive feedback welcome, >-Alex > >On 12/5/17, 11:42 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" wrote: > >>Ok I will wait for your final push to develop. In any case it looks good >>till now. >> >>Once you update Readme I can make a build - I haven't done ant build for >>a >>while. >> >>Thanks, Piotr >> >>On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, 08:38 Alex Harui wrote: >> >>> Hi Piotr, >>> >>> I have all 3 feature/rename branches merged into the develop branch >>> locally. I'm not sure it is necessary to merge the other way first, >>> especially in royale-asjs because most of the changes were in the >>>compiler. >>> >>> I was going to push it tomorrow (for me) so I can babysit the CI >>>servers >>> if they don't pass since I haven't tested the merge on Windows (the CI >>> server has built and ran tests on Windows on feature/rename). >>> >>> I can hold off if folks want to do more testing on feature/rename >>>before >>> the merge to develop. >>> >>> Regarding Flash dependencies, I would like to see some folks use a >>>clean >>> machine or try to simulate a clean machine (by removing folders and >>> environment variables) and see if they can get the repos and build >>> everything, although that reminds me that I need to update the various >>> READMEs first. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 12/5/17, 11:19 PM, "Piotr Zarzycki" >>>wrote: >>> >>> >Hi Alex, >>> > >>> >I did merge develop into rename for asjs repo locally, but not sure >>> >whether >>> >I can push it to the rename - let me know. >>> >Apart of that you have said that you need volunteers that check >>>whether >>> >there are still places with dependencies to Flash. - What do you mean >>>by >>> >that actually ? Do you mean making build on branches ? I did it by >>>maven >>> >but not sure whether it is sufficient. >>> > >>> >I did also use your rename branch with Moonshine and everything looks >>>ok. >>> > >>> >I have also discovered that in the following locations for all modules >>> >"frameworks\js\projects\BasicJS\target\" we have swc - probably it >>>should >>> >be excluded in the distribution package build for ant. >>> > >>> >Thanks, Piotr >>> > >>> >2017-12-03 12:53 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki : >>> > >>> >> In that place I think we should have Wiki page called: "How to >>>download >>> >> IDE ready Royale framework" - or something similar. It should >>>describe >>> >>what >>> >> kind of package do we have and what people need to do in order to >>>have >>> >>SWF >>> >> output. >>> >> >>> >> I don't think we should have in the title word "binary package" - It >>> >> wasn't mean to me anything when I come up to Apache Flex project. I >>> >>believe >>> >> there could be more people like me. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, Piotr >>> >> >>> >> >
