Why can't there be a default dependency from the SDK to MXML compiler? I assume you meant to use org.apacheŠ for Falcon.
Does doing this require a separate package for the compiler or will you just stick the relevant jars up in Maven Central? -Alex On 4/11/14 9:43 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Ok ... well another option would be to strip the default compiler from >flexmojos. The upside would be that I could give both compiler artifacts >different names and the user could decide which one he wanted to use by >adding the corresponding dependency. The downside would be that it would >no longer be possible to beginnners to start with Flex and Flexmojos >without providing a compiler. But thinking about that ... I never liked >the default anyway. > >So how about the Mavenizer creatng: > >For the current MXML compiler: > ><dependency> > <groupId>com.adobe.flex.compiler</groupId> > <artifactId>mxml-compiler</artifactId> > <version>fdk-version</version> > <type>pom</type> ></dependency> > >For Falcon: > ><dependency> > <groupId>com.adobe.flex.compiler</groupId> > <artifactId>falcon-compiler</artifactId> > <version>fdk-version</version> > <type>pom</type> ></dependency> > >And to get rid of the current: > ><dependency> > <groupId>com.adobe.flex </groupId> > <artifactId>compiler</artifactId> > <version>fdk-version</version> > <type>pom</type> ></dependency> > >Any objections? > >Cool thing ist hat I should be able to change FM7 to support these >changes without breaking the builds of people having FDKs mavenized by >previous versions of the Mavenizer. > >Chris > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Gesendet: Freitag, 11. April 2014 18:27 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: How to deal with Falcon/CompC FDKs? > >Hi Chris, > >Not sure I fully understood this, but consider thinking about MXMLC and >Falcon as different sub compilers supplied by different companies. I >would imagine there are other sub compilers in the Maven universe, no? > >For a while, at least, folks building projects may wish to use Falcon or >revert back to MXMLC if there are bugs in Falcon, so having the compiler >be a separate dependency should allow them to choose their compiler by >changing a dependency somewhere. And better yet, Falcon and MXMLC are >Java projects and may not need a mojo. I am open to creating a separate >MXMLC-only release package if that helps. > >Does that help toward a solution? > >-Thanks, >-Alex > >On 4/11/14 9:18 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I finally managed to have the Mavenizer use Falcon to compiille the >>Theme SWCs and it seems to be running fine :) >> >>Now I had the problem, that currently it would be possible to have two >>variants of mavenized compiler in the FDK. So how should web e able to >>distinguish between both? >> >>If I for example generate a org.apache.flex:compiler:pom and a >>org.apacche.flex:compiler-falcon, I guess this would be a problem, as >>including compiler-falcon in the maven config wouldn't override the >>compiler version that is included per default. So If Flexmojos was >>built against 4.12 and I wanted to use Falcon in version 4.13, the >>maven build would user compiler-4.12 and compiler-falcon-4.13, which >>could be really bad. >> >>Another option would be to add classifiers: so the falcon and the compc >>version would both be called compiler, but one would have the >>cclassifier "compc" and one would be "falcon". Then the Override >>mechanism would work. I would then make Flexmojos use "compc" as >>defaullt and we should have a minimal impact on that. Unfortunately >>classifiers can't be used for this as if you have mmultiple artifacts >>with different classifiers, they still share the same pom and >>classifiers seem to be not availablle for pom-modules. >> >>One way to solve this problemm would be to instead of creating a >>cpmpiler pom artifact, to create a jar artifact, that contains all the >>jars content of all the dependencies of the pom, but I think this is >>pretty ugly :( >> >>So I would have another proposal: >>How would it be to keep the compiler the way it was allways done >>including compc and mxml and to add another pom that contains falcon >>and to change Flexmojos to check for falcon and as soon as that's >>availallbe it would use that, if not it would use the default. Now we >>would have MXML, CompC and Falcon in the build path but from a maven >>perspective this would be the cleanest solution. >> >>What do you think? >> >>Chris >
