Maybe a few warnings when 1) developer NOT using same version( between
playerglobal and target player); 2) developer explicitly declare
playerglobal as internal/external. -Gary
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
