I Just had a look at the code and it seems that the hard-coded name is only used in order to decide if the dependency is "internal". In Flexmojos I can set scopes "internal" and "external" (I think in Flexmojos Scopes the playerglobal should be "external"). So I'll investigate if setting the playerglobal dependency to Mavens scope "external" which should result in the same behaviour.
If the playerglobal is not needed to be included in the output as the runtime provides this, "external" seems to be exactly that and I think providing that scope in maven is cleaner than renaming the package and then interenally handling it differently. What do you think? Chris ________________________________________ Von: Alexander Doroshko <alexander.doros...@jetbrains.com> Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:01 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way? I'm afraid hardcoded "playerglobal.swc" is still not wiped out from the compiler sources. See flex2.compiler.mxml.lang.StandardDefs#SWC_PLAYERGLOBAL, its usage in flex2.compiler.CompilerSwcContext#createSource() and further usages of flex2.compiler.Source#isInternal(). With renamed playerglobal.swc compiler will just work incorrectly. On 01.06.2014 3:09, Christofer Dutz wrote: > But if I build using maven, it shouldn't matter ... so I was wandering why > Velo implemented this extremely complicated renaming ... > Seems to work nicely without :-) > > Chris > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] > Gesendet: Samstag, 31. Mai 2014 22:15 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be > named exactly this way? > > HI, > >> So is this now an obsolete requirement? > As far as I aware Flash Builder expects it to be called playerglobal.swc. > > Thanks, > Justin
