I believe (needs proving) that everything in the list is optional from a build perspective.
-AIR SDK: Required for IDEs. Required for Mobile and Desktop. Not required for Browser apps. -PlayerGlobal: Required for IDEs. Required for Browser apps. Not required for Mobile and Desktop. -BlazeDS: Required for any app that uses services-config.xml. -Embedded Fonts: Required for apps that embed fonts. -OSMF: Required for apps that use Spark video (but not MX video). -SWFObject: Required for IDEs. Required for Browser apps. Not required for Mobile and Desktop. HTH, -Alex On 9/21/14 2:43 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >And what about osmf? > >I think I have never ever actually used it. Could it be possible that for >a maven release of flex having osmf included isn't a requirement? Would >it be a valid approach to have people add a depdencency to osmf only if >they actually want to use it? > >So in this case adding: > ><dependency> > <groupId>com.adobe.osmf</groupId> > <artifactId>osmf</artifactId> > <version>2.0</version> > <type>swc</type> ></dependency> > >Would deal with it. What exactly is SWFObject needed for? Would it be >valid to have it omitted from an official Flex Maven release? In this >case I think simply documenting what you need to do to enable different >features sounds a better approach than bundling other projects with ours. >Currently we already have different parts of flex separate, why not these >too? > >I'm just asking this because I was thinking about adding my >maven-deploy-ant stuff to the flex-sdk and hereby have nightly-build >SNAPSHOT versions generated automatically. > >Chris > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Christofer Dutz [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de] >Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. September 2014 10:55 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: AW: AW: List of dependencies > >And am I correct, that you only need the Embedded Fonts if you are >actually embedding fonts. Flex would work fine without those 4 libs if >you don't use the font encoding? > >Its just that I don't want to proceed in a direction that would make us >release stuff that can't work on ist own. > >I would also have to have a look how to add something to the plugin >classpath as playerglobal and airglobal are added to the application >classpath and the font-embedding needs to go to the plugins classpath. > > >Chris > > > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Gesendet: Samstag, 20. September 2014 16:15 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: AW: List of dependencies > >Hi Chris, > >OK, so the jars you are interested in aren't in Maven Central. The Adobe >stuff in Maven Central appears to have open licenses. > >The installer shows you the sets of external dependencies (from memory): >AIR SDK, PlayerGlobal, BlazeDS, Embedded Fonts, OSMF, SWFObject. > >SWFObject is under MIT so we probably don't really need to ask folks >about it, and we could bundle it in the future. >OSMF is under MPL so I don't think Adobe cares that folks accept its >license. >BlazeDS is under MPL, as well. In future Apache Flex releases, this will >no longer be an external dependency. I'm pretty sure the compiler only >uses one or two classes from one BlazeDS jar. We don't even really need >to release BlazeDS to remove this dependency, we could change our build >script to pull those two classes. >Embedded Fonts is under Adobe license so it needs to be treated like AIR >SDK and PlayerGlobal. It is four jars, and you only truly need to ask >once for the set of four, not for each one. > >HTH, >-Alex > > >On 9/20/14 1:42 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > >>Ok ... so I'll do a reply to all things in one post (As you all no, I >>hate this discussion fragmentation) >> >>I know that we don't only have dependencies to Flash and Air artifacts, >>but also to BlazeDS and some other libs. Alex talked about one >>font-encoding library being needed that still is Adobe. Now it was an >>assumption of mine, that Adobe didn't change this lib that often and I >>was hoping, that the version we use is still the same Velo deployed >>back in the old days when he still did that. >> >>From talking to him about this, he had permission to do that from Adobe >>and Sonatype had a grant from Adobe to publicaly publish the stuff. At >>first I was thinking about me deploying the Flash and Air artifacts at >>Sonatype and us releasing our stuff at Apache with both ending up in >>Maven central. But Sonatype explained that the permit had expired and >>Adobe didn't want to renew it. So that door is closed. >> >>I just posted in another thread that I added the auto-download after >>Accepting license feature for downloading playerglobal and airglobal >>and the feature seems to be working nicely. >> >>Ok I didn't find the artifact in maven central but in sonatypes open >>repo: >>https://repository.sonatype.org/#nexus-search;gav~com.adobe.flex.compil >>er~ >>afe~~~ >>Having a look all Flex 4.x versions from Adobe had the same MD5 hash so >>I was thinking about referencing this artifact for example: >>https://repository.sonatype.org/service/local/repositories/flex/content >>/co m/adobe/flex/compiler/afe/4.6.b.23201/afe-4.6.b.23201.jar >> >>My way to satisfy Adobe legal in regards to the playerglobal and >>airglobal seem to be ok the way I implemented Flexmojos now, but I >>doubt that it would be possible to cleanly integrate the font handling >>the same way. I would become more and more a hack. >> >>Perhaps If you could post a list of external dependencies that we still >>rely on and don't have the permission to publish, I could start finding >>solutions to where to get them from or how to make the build-system >>cope with them. (For example I could make Flexmojos check if afe is >>present only if font encoding is being used in the project and >>eventually handle that gracefully) but I wouldn't like to do this for >>every external and optional dependency. >> >>Chris >> >> >> >>________________________________________ >>Von: omup...@gmail.com <omup...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von OmPrakash >>Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>Gesendet: Freitag, 19. September 2014 21:39 >>An: dev@flex.apache.org >>Betreff: Re: List of dependencies >> >>On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> Om, >>> >>> Have you actually found the jars on Maven Central? I can't find them >>>with the search facility. Can you post the URLs? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Alex >>> >>> >>Here is what I found: >> >>http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|adobe >>http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|flexmojos >> >>Chris can probably give you the correct list. >> >>Thanks, >>Om >> >> >>> On 9/19/14 11:33 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>> >On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 9/19/14 11:06 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >Before this discussion veers further into weirder territory, what >>> >> >is >>> >>the >>> >> >best way to move forward? >>> >> > >>> >> >If Velo had an official permit from Adobe, is that not good >>> >> >enough >>>for >>> >>us, >>> >> >regardless of what happened internally at Adobe? >>> >> When we first started talking about Maven and Apache Flex, I asked >>>Adobe >>> >> Legal and they insisted on having folks explicitly accept the >>> >> Adobe >>>EULA >>> >> (via some UI gesture) before downloading Adobe dependencies. The >>>sense >>> >>I >>> >> got from poking around Maven Central is that the jars out there >>> >>are under open licenses. Chris Dutz offered to create a Maven >>> >>extension to do that. >>> >> If someone can point me to the jars in Maven Central, I'll ask >>> >>Adobe Legal whether it is ok for them to be there and downloaded >>> >>without explicit acceptance, but they could come back and ask me >>> >>to remove >>>all >>> >>of >>> >> them. Or maybe this time they'll cave and say it is ok. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >I say we ask permission first to let things continue the way they >>> >are today. If they say no, we look at adding an explicit license >>>agreement UI >>> >action. >>> > >>> >Chris, is this acceptable for you? Others? >>> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> >I see that there are some PDF, Acrobat and Day jars already on >>>Maven, >>> >>so >>> >> >this must not be a new concept for their legal team, I am guessing. >>> >> It might be. Not everyone asks legal before doing things at Adobe. >>>If >>> >>I >>> >> had, I probably wouldn't have a blog. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >Fair enough :-) >>> > >>> >Thanks, >>> >Om >>> > >>> > >>> >> -Alex >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >
