You are right that playerglobal.swc has "external" dependency scope in
Maven terms (and -external-library-path in terms of Flex compiler
options). Custom SWCs also may have "external" scope configred by user
who wants to omit inclusion of classes from this custom SWC. From maven
point of view both playerglobal.swc and custom.swc look the same. But
compiler still needs to handle them differently.
So far I don't see a way of making existing legacy compiler work
correctly with renamed playerglobal.swc.
On 02.06.2014 15:40, Christofer Dutz wrote:
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
