One nitpick here: falcon contains both the falcon and falconjx compiler. Are both considered “FlexJS”?
On Jul 11, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > So are we agreeing on splitting up our codebase into these three parts (even > if two of the repos currently still have different names)? > > - flexjs-compiler > > - flexjs-typedefs > > - flexjs-framework > > > In this case I could start preparing things by renaming the "extern" stuff to > "typedef"? I would also call the Maven classifier "typedef". Are the JSSWCs > from the asjs bundle typedefs or are they something different? > > > Chris > > ________________________________ > Von: carlos.rov...@gmail.com <carlos.rov...@gmail.com> im Auftrag von Carlos > Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. Juli 2016 17:34:59 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Cc: Christofer Dutz > Betreff: Re: AW: [FlexJS][Falcon] Some final moving around of stuff :-) > > Hi, > > +1 > > I think is completely the way to go, without doubt. These are the kind of > things that needs to be refactored in order to get maven to build in order > and correcly without problems (like circular dependencies, chicken-egg > problems, and so on...), and this kind of things use to be a the way maven > signal things needs to be moved. > > > 2016-07-10 16:01 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui > <aha...@adobe.com<mailto:aha...@adobe.com>>: > Version number is a whole different topic. Because the extern defines > existing third-party apis there is a good chance they won't change as often. > > Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: Christofer Dutz > Date: Sun, Jul 10, 2016 3:26 AM > To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>; > Subject:AW: [FlexJS][Falcon] Some final moving around of stuff :-) > > 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<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> > Datum: 10.07.16 06:38 (GMT+01:00) > An: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> >> Datum: 09.07.16 16:32 (GMT+01:00) >> An: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto: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<mailto: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 >> > > > > > -- > [http://www.codeoscopic.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/logo_codeoscopic_170x70t.png] > Carlos Rovira > Director General > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > http://www.codeoscopic.com > http://www.avant2.es<http://www.avant2.es/> > > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener > información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por > error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y > proceda a su destrucción. > > De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos > que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC S.A. > La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del servicio o > información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, rectificación, > cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas c/ > Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación necesaria. >
