Getting a flex-extern repo is also an option. Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
------ Original message------ From: Christofer Dutz Date: Sat, Jul 9, 2016 7:54 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org; Subject:AW: [FlexJS][Falcon] Some final moving around of stuff :-) Hi Alex, Well fire me they are sumthing in between falcon and asjs. My main reason for wanting to move them us that it would completely untangle the dependencies and make the build trivial. Chris Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet. -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> Datum: 09.07.16 16:32 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [FlexJS][Falcon] Some final moving around of stuff :-) On 7/8/16, 2:04 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"? > I'd like to hear from a few others before we do this move. I don't remember if there is some "packaging" reason like the ability to some day make a release just from flex-falcon that can create NativeJS apps. The Externs aren't a perfect fit for flex-asjs since they mostly aren't AS. And the main set of externs comes packaged with the Google Closure Compiler so that would mean the flex-asjs build would now also have to bring down and/or unpack GCC. I can go either way. -Alex
