Hi Alex, well in general per groupId:artifactId:version tuple there is only one jar, but that artifact can provide dependencies to other artifacts with an other groupId and/or artifactId which is then transitively pulled in. Above that there is a packaging type of "pom" which doesn't have any jar, but consists of a list of dependencies. So when you reference that, it automatically pulls in the dependencies referenced. So if for example you reference "org.apache.flex:compiler:pom:4.15.0, you actually get all the libs in the SDK. I would really love to give you all a training in these basic things. I just finished such a training and it took about 1 day to understand the concepts.
Chris ________________________________________ Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2016 16:33 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: [Discuss] Naming of Falcon/FlexJS artifacts I read up a bit more on Maven ids. One question I have is: Can there be more than one jar per artifactid? For the current org.apache.flex:compiler, isn't there multiple jars for that "coordinate"? Looking way ahead, within the compiler.jx folder, there is the possibility of multiple output targets. Currently only JS but could be TypeScript or others some day which may be in their own jars or provided by other projects. Maybe we should break out the JS output "backend" into another artifact. Thoughts? -Alex On 2/20/16, 11:47 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >I agree with most of your thoughts, but my intention was to make it >simpler for people to get started, having to know all of the history just >in order to know which artifacts to get doesn't make things easier. > >I guess the best thing would have been, if we didn't change the groupIds >and artifactIds of the parts. >Currently this would be "org.apache.flex:compiler" and >"org.apache.flex:framework" but if we started with 1.0, this would really >mess up things. As we would have collisions starting with the first >release version of Apache Flex. Besides explaining why the newest version >starts at 1.0 again just sounds silly. > >Another option would be to call the thing Flex 5.0 ... this would >probably be the simplest solution for all. And the major version update >justifies breaking compatibility. > >And just as a side info ... I think Maven doesn't like things such as >"2.0" in the groupId. > >Chris > >________________________________________ >Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >Gesendet: Sonntag, 21. Februar 2016 07:30 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: [Discuss] Naming of Falcon/FlexJS artifacts > >More thoughts: > >Falcon was actually never intended to be the product name for the >compiler. Adobe teams often used code-names for the code. Adobe released >flex-falcon/compiler as ASC2.0. > >We could call flex-falcon/compiler MXMLC2.0 since we completed the MXML >support (or at least, lots of it) once the code base came to Apache. My >only problem with that is that flex-falcon/compiler can also just compile >AS -> SWF and calling it MXMLC doesn't really imply that, and we can't >have a product called ASC2.0. > >There is an Apache TLP called Falcon, so getting rid of Falcon in the name >might be a good thing. > >The 2.0 was meant to denote that the compiler was a "next-generation" >compiler. We could use "NG" or ' (prime) or something like that. > >So given all that, one proposal would be: > >MXMLC2.0 > flex-falcon/compiler > flex-falcon/debugger > flex-falcon/flex-oem-compiler > >MXMLJSC2.0/ASJSC2.0 > flex-falcon/compiler.jx > >ASJS Framework > flex-falcon/externs/js/out/js.swc > flex-falcon/externs/jquery/out/jquery.swc > ... > >FlexJS Framework > flex-asjs/frameworks/libs/*.swc > >FlexJS SDK > Bundles all of the above. > >I'm not quite sure how that maps to Maven, but could we then use: >MXMLC2.0 org.apache.flex.compiler.2.0:compiler >MXMLJSC2.0 org.apache.flex.compiler.2.0:js-compiler >ASJS org.apache.flex.asjs: >FlexJS org.apache.flex.flexjs: > > > >Thoughts? > >-Alex > >On 2/20/16, 8:52 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>So in theory, the SWF compiler in flex-falcon/compiler, the Flash Builder >>integration jar in flex-falcon/flex-oem-compiler, and the FDB debugger in >>flex-falcon/debugger will some day replace MXMLC and its FDB for >>compiling >>future Flex (as well as FlexJS) SWFs. >> >>Then we have the cross-compiler or transpolar in flex-falcon/compiler.jx >> >>And we have a bunch of swcs in flex-falcon/externs. These SWCs map to >>existing JS frameworks >> >>Over in flex-asjs, we have even more swcs that depend on the swcs in >>flex-falcon/externs. These SWCs form a framework similar to the Flex SDK >>(MXML support, for example). >> >>We've been using FlexJS as the name for this Flex SDK-like SDK for JS, >>but >>not so much for the compiler. >> >>So, I'm not sure that flexjs should be in the coordinates for Falcon >>since >>it isn't dedicated to just FlexJS, but I'm definitely open to better >>naming. >> >>Thoughts? >>-Alex >> >>On 2/20/16, 7:39 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>> >>>while I see an actual chance to have Falcon built with maven and hereby >>>producing Maven artifacts, I think we should discuss the coordinates >>>these artifacts are created under. >>> >>> >>>Currently I was using "org.apache.flex.compiler:falcon-compiler" while >>>the normal compiler was "org.apache.flex.compiler:compiler". >>> >>> >>>We currently have a framework called "FlexJS"/"AsJS" (actually I don't >>>really know the name ;-) ) >>> >>>We have a compiler Falcon and FalconJX (Don't quite know what the last >>>part really is) >>> >>> >>>Anyway ... we are usually talking about "FlexJS" and referring to the >>>new >>>compiler and the framework. >>> >>> >>>My proposal would be to publish all under: >>> >>>org.apache.flex.flexjs:compiler >>> >>>and: >>> >>>org.apache.flex.flexjs:framework >>> >>> >>>I think if we throw in all these codenames we really confuse people. If >>>we just say "FlexJS framework is built by the FlexJS compiler" this is a >>>lot simpler. I guess if we tell people ... "Yeah, our flexjs compiler >>>can >>>also compile flex applictions" noone will be ok with that. >>> >>> >>>What do you think? >>> >>> >>>Chris >> >
