I would particularly like the renaming to flexjs-framework and FlexJS-compiler :-)
We would have to do and vote on 3 releases, but I guess that should be easy. I would however suggest to keep the versions in sync. Everything else would confuse people. Chris Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet. -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> Datum: 10.07.16 06:38 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [FlexJS][Falcon] Some final moving around of stuff :-) I was going to suggest this option. Externs are something which might or might not be used with the Framework. Having it a separate repo makes it clear that it’s a third piece of “FlexJS” (i.e. FlexJS Compiler, FlexJS Framework and FlexJS Type Definitions). In fact, I would vote to name the repo flex-typedefs or flex-js-typedefs. On Jul 9, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > 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 >
