Well, it is a quick search and replace if you already have code using FlexJS.
Can you tell us more about your application? I think Harbs is mostly done with his migration so I think we have the bandwidth to "adopt" another migration effort. Your migration issues would be given priority. It would be like having extra team members. Technically, a main reason for Royale is to automate the conversion of your code from the more structured AS to the less structured JS. Manually porting the code is likely to have higher risk of hard-to-find problems. How many SWFs, about how large are the SWFs? Are you using any third-party libraries? Any particular components that are key to your application? Thanks, -Alex On 10/24/17, 12:48 PM, "Carlos Cruz" <car...@nbtbizcapital.com> wrote: >Thx!! I appreciate the quick response. I have a huge Flex (flash player) >web application to convert, I have yet to decide which direction to go, >so I guess it's a good thing I haven't done too much work with FlexJS. > >Thx! >Carlos > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID] >Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 11:11 PM >To: users@flex.apache.org >Subject: Re: Apache Royale Compiler > >Hi Carlos, > >Yes, there are probably changes required. Look for the word "flexjs" and >replace it with "royale". Then also look for occurrences of just plain >"flex" (especially in package names) and many of those will also need >replacing with "royale". > >HTH, >-Alex > >On 10/23/17, 6:01 PM, "Carlos Cruz" <car...@nbtbizcapital.com> wrote: > >>To test the Royale compiler are any changes to the code required to >>apps targeting FlexJS? >> >> >> >>Thx! >> >> >> >> >> > >
