to me externs have no context bc I've never heard it before it was mentioned on this list. if you want to move it to the frameworks directory that would make more sense. other folder names that would fit would be "libraries" or "bin". something along the lines of what they are used for like, "../autocomplete/libraries/" On Jul 8, 2016 4:05 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Hi, > > > ok in order to prepare the stage for a 0.7.0 release of Falcon and ASJS, I > would like to propose some final moving around of things. I would like to > move the "externs" to the ASJS project. For me the ASJS project is sort of > a synonym for "framework" > > > The reason for this is actually two: > > 1. For me Falcon is the "compiler" and Externs are somewhat the output of > the compiler. For me the externs are just part of the "framework" (After > all they are located in the "framework" directory in the end) > > 2. It makes the Build and hereby the Maven release process a lot easier as > it could performed in one instead of two separate steps (first the compiler > and then the externs) > > > If we move the externs to the "framework" then we will be in the position > to do a simple "mvn clean install" in the "compiler" to build the compiler > and all that belongs to it and we could to a "mvn clean install" in the > "framework" to build the SWCs and assemble a useable SDK. > > > The reason for me investing a little more in this, is that in contrast to > having a binary release in our repo, as soon as we do a Maven release, > taking it back isn't possible anymore. So I'd like to have things clean and > not push stuff that we know will have to change soon. Especially if these > changes are easy to implement now. > > > I am not really happy with the names of the artifacts in the compiler > module, but I'd be happy for now if we could do this untangling of the > "externs". > > > What do the others think? Do you agree that the Externs should be moved to > the "framework"? > > > Chris >
