I have not had the time. Is there anything to be aware of when you merge it in from an application development stand-point?
Have you done anything regarding the Basic vs. HTML projects? Harbs > On Mar 16, 2017, at 3:01 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > Has anyone else looked at the dual branch? If you want to know more about > it before it gets merged let me know soon, otherwise I am going to merge > it. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/11/17, 10:49 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/11/17, 10:34 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> I just had a look and the changes look valid. The only thing I think I >>> should change, is that it seems as if prior to your change, I needed two >>> compilations AS & JS and therefore there were two Mojos: CompileASMojo >>> and CompileJSMojo. I think now we need only one. If the current state it >>> also looks as if both the AS and the JS mojo would do a dual compilation. >>> >>> If you confirm, that now I need only one Mojo, I would refactor it and >>> create a “CompileLibMojo” and remove the other two CompileASMojo and >>> CompileJSMojo. >> >> Well, we still build two SWCs per project. We might want to rename the >> Mojos, but the CompileASMojo builds a SWC that has a library.swf with >> COMPILE::SWF=true but includes JS files compiled with COMPILE::JS=true, >> then CompileJSMojo builds a SWC that has a library.swf with >> COMPILE::JS=true and the JS files with COMPILE::JS=true and the artifact >> has the -js classifier. >> >> At some point we can try combining the two and renaming one of the >> library.swf and catalog.xml files, but for now we still need a SWC with >> library.swf with COMPILE::SWF=true and a SWC with library.swf with >> COMPILE::JS=true. >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >
