That would be great but hard to get attention in the JavaScript world. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:58 PM Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Frederic, > > I was thinking about that problem. What if Royale will be so good that you > could go opposite. Employ someone who know JS, but learn him AS and all the > workflow. Wondering if it will be possible some day. :) > > Thanks, > Piotr > > czw., 27 wrz 2018 o 12:53 Fréderic Cox <[email protected]> napisał(a): > >> Hi Alex, >> >> Correct, I'm not going away from MXML nor Actionscript at all because I >> know about the advantages and workflows I love so much. The reality here is >> that we don't find a lot of AS3 developers anymore though, that is a small >> concern I have at the moment. :) >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:00 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Fréderic, >>> >>> >>> >>> I understand you now. Royale should be a good choice as it can be >>> thought of exactly as you are thinking of it: a lighterweight Flex-like >>> SDK that can output to JS. >>> >>> >>> >>> I thought that you were trying to get away from MXML and ActionScript as >>> well. I think there are so many advantages to working with a structured >>> language. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Fréderic Cox <[email protected]> >>> *Reply-To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 12:56 PM >>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Subject: *Re: Evaluating Apache Royale for the long term >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> >>> >>> Two main reasons: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Being able to have the source compile to JS, since that is what >>> everyone is doing lately :-) I don't want to exclude my source code from >>> future projects by not using JS >>> >>> >>> >>> 2) Flex is more "bloated" than Royale (PAYG), so I think in the long >>> term it will be better to have more performant code. >>> >>> >>> >>> Correct me if I'm wrong :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:01 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Fréderic, >>> >>> >>> >>> That’s interesting. What is it about Flex that you want to get away from? >>> >>> >>> >>> I suppose you can load the JS into a webview, but I think you might need >>> some more glue to have the JS access the Native Extension. But I think >>> that you can write such glue. Not sure how efficient it will be. >>> >>> >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Fréderic Cox <[email protected]> >>> *Reply-To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 11:39 AM >>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Subject: *Re: Evaluating Apache Royale for the long term >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm trying to go look into a path to get away from Flex rather than AIR. >>> Most of my apps are desktop based, and the ones that are browser based we >>> are loading into an AIR container (directly loading the SWF) anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I guess I can use royale and then load the resulting JS into a >>> webview in AIR? That way I can still use native extensions? >>> >>> >>> >>> I spent some time trying Apache Royale today but it will take me many >>> more days before I really get used and experienced in it but I'll try to >>> help where I can. Lot's of stuff to learn about it first but it looks >>> really promising. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:09 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Fréderic, >>> >>> >>> >>> Just so I’m clear, are all of your apps AIR apps and not browser apps? >>> If so, and you want to get away from AIR, then you will have to decide on >>> how to run the resulting JS. Royale has support for Cordova and Node. I >>> haven’t done much with Node, so not sure how much graphical UI you could do >>> there. I think you can also use Chromium Embedded as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> You will need to pick your runtime environment first. I will assume the >>> Browser is not one of your choices, but there may be a way to use it, I >>> don’t know. I’m not sure there is a 100% equivalent to AIR. I think >>> you’ll always have to trade-off some feature or build missing capabilities. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding Native Extensions: I believe each runtime environment has a >>> way to call native code. So, your Native Extensions probably can’t be used >>> as-is, but the code that actually does the work can probably be re-used to >>> some extent. For example, if you chose Cordova, you can probably make a >>> Cordova plugin using some of that Native Extension code. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think each runtime environment also has a way to launch other apps and >>> access files. Cordova has a File plugin and we have some examples that use >>> it. A volunteer could make a more Flex-like wrapper for it. >>> >>> >>> >>> AMF works in lots of places but there are probably still bugs. I don’t >>> see any reason it wouldn’t eventually work for your app. >>> >>> >>> >>> TourDeFlex uses modules. It can load modules now. Royale does not >>> support unloading modules because the runtime environments don’t make it >>> easy to remove loaded code. As I get more of TourDeFlex working and other >>> people get their apps working we will get a better idea of how important >>> “stuck code” is. Unloading the instances of objects created by module code >>> will likely be far more important, and that cleanup generally needs to be >>> done whether the code unloads or not. Also, because Royale doesn’t >>> currently support embedding, the size of the loaded module may not be as >>> significant. >>> >>> >>> >>> There hasn’t been a lot of attention paid to Royale outside of the >>> browser, so expect to run into more issues, but we do have intentions of >>> getting it all to work. We expect you and other volunteers to contribute >>> to making it work by contributing code and patches. If you do enough of >>> that, you will probably be granted committer status, and then you have much >>> more control over Royale in the long term. >>> >>> >>> >>> HTH, >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Fréderic Cox <[email protected]> >>> *Reply-To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 2:31 AM >>> *To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> *Subject: *Evaluating Apache Royale for the long term >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> >>> >>> Finally you have my full attention :-) I am spending the remainder of >>> this week (at least) to evaluate using Apache Royale for our company's >>> apps. I'm evaluating wether it is a good course to convert our existing >>> flex apps (which currently target Mac OSX, Windows and iOS using Adobe AIR). >>> >>> >>> >>> I have a couple of early questions after installing VSCode and Josh's >>> AS/MXML extension. >>> >>> >>> >>> Our apps are pretty complex, using things like: >>> >>> >>> >>> * Modules (one application uses ModuleLoader quite heavily) >>> >>> * Accessing user's hard disk to manipulate files >>> >>> * AMFPHP for communication with PHP backend >>> >>> * NativeProcess API to convert images using a compiled version of >>> ImageMagick (so accessing .exe files and mac executable scripts) >>> >>> * NativeExtensions >>> >>> >>> >>> Can this all be used with ApacheRoyale? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the information, I'm going to experiment with the examples >>> and try to convert some parts of apps to see where this is going. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Fréderic >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* >
