Ähem ... actually I didn't want to treat it any different than the rest.
First I should make clear:
Flexmojos ("external") tells the compiler not to include the classes in the
output, "internal" includes everything into the output. I think the Flex
compiler has a different definition of this (Treating from the fact that
playerglbal should be "internal" in the compiler). I guess "internal" in the
compiler means that the classes are an "internal" part of the runtime and
should not be included in the output. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
I can make any dependency "external" (Maven point of view) that means the
library/application requires the runtime environment to provide this somehow
differently. In case of the playerglobal the flashplayer natively implements
and provides these ... I think the playerglobal is simply a dummy
implementation of the Flashplayer API ... something like the "Servlet API" in
Java web application, which you usually also set to "provided" and don't
include to your application (Eventually renaming the Flexmojos scope to
"provided" would be a good idea).
So I am suggesting to include a check to Flexmojos to tell users to set the
dependency to playerglobal / airglobal to "external/provided" which should
result in the same behaviour as defining it as normal "compile" dependency and
to handle it as "external" in the inside of the plugin and to remove any
special handling.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Gary Yang <flashflex...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 16:03
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to
be named exactly this way?
Chris, You are right, I think it would be better to treat playerglobal
specially, it is the NOT opensource core of Flash platform. -Gary
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
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
>
>
