Hi Alex,
So I adjusted the native examples poms in your dual branch … now it seems to
build successfully with maven.
Chris
Am 07.03.17, 17:29 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>:
On 3/7/17, 4:36 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>Hi guys and especially Alex,
>
>I would like to ask you to give a short summary at what you changed in
>the dual branch. I don’t quite know as to what I should be looking for to
>make Maven support to match.
>
>Could you please summarize what new compiler options/arguments, which
>new/changed/obsolete compilation runs and how the packaging should have
>changed?
>Right now, I still see swc and js-swc as output of the compilation. I
>would expect one single swc to come out and this to contain two
>catalog.xml … ist that correct?
The goal of dual was just to get two "stacks" of SWCs (one for SWF, one
for JS) to work in the compiler. Merging the two swcs into one and
renaming catalog.xml and library.swf is for later. Getting two "stacks"
to work sets the foundation for merging later by first proving that we can
in fact produce runnable SWFs and JS from separate stacks and that having
two stacks allows us to find platform dependencies in our code.
So, there are still two SWCs produced from each frameworks/projects
folder. However, instead of calling the JS oriented one a "typedefs" SWC,
I changed it to be a "js" classifier because the JS swc is now used to
build the JS app. Before, the JS-oriented SWC was primarily used to
generate downstream JS-oriented SWCs so the "typedefs" classifier made
more sense.
The default SWC is the same as before. It contains a library.swf compiled
with COMPILE::SWF,true and thus the code inside is used for linking into
SWFs. It contains the cross-complled JS output like before which was
compiled with COMPILE::JS,true. And it contains any defaults.css like
before.
The "js" SWC is a bit different. It contains a library.swf compiled with
COMPILE::JS,true just like before, but now it also contains the
cross-compiled JS output (with COMPILE::JS, true) and any defaults.css.
So it is more of a peer of the main SWC, it just has a different
library.swf.
In order to do this, I still use CompileASMojo to build the default SWC.
I think the main changes there are that I switched the name of
compile-as-config.xml to compile-swf-config.xml, but more importantly, I
switched the mojo to use the FlexJS version of compc because the compc
from compiler-jx now can produce both SWF and JS output (by calling the
compc from the compiler folder for SWF output). So, CompileASMojo also
learned how to filter artifacts and sort the js ones into js slots in the
-config.xml file.
The CompileJSMojo also now uses the compc from compiler-ix and filters
artifacts a bit differently to produce the "js" swc.
Then, once the framework is built, the CompileAppMojo now only needs one
default execution since it now calls the compiler-ix version of MXMLC
(MXMLJSC) which also now knows how to build both a SWF and JS output in
one execution. So I took the second execution that had
outputJavaScript=true out of the pom.xml.
The main new compiler option is -compiler.targets which takes a set of
strings like "SWF, "JSFlex", "JS", "JSNode". You can set compiler.targets
to one or more of these to dictate what output you want. Then in order to
support that, lots of existing options got platform-specific options so
there is now a js-external-library-path and swf-external-library-path as
well as the old external-library-path option. That way you can specify
one -config.xml file for all output targets.
I have essential obsoleted the -js-output-type parameter. Folks should
use -compiler.targets instead for building SWCs and apps. Js-output-type
is still used by ASDoc though.
I think that's about it, although I'm sure I forgot to mention something.
I won't be too surprised if I did something that isn't with the Maven
philosophy. My main goal was to get MXMLJSC to output both SWF and JS so
it would work better with most IDEs since most IDEs only know how to
launch one compiler. And that has nothing to do with Maven. But once I
got that working I decided that maybe Maven would prefer to have both
outputs from one execution as well.
HTH,
-Alex
>
>Thanks in advance,
> Chris
