Maybe better for looking for mx, s application or subclass. Or ensuring is not Jewel, Basic, MDL, Express and the rest of other types. First option seems better to avoid maintenance over time for new sets
If done that way I'd be interested in add a Jewel config too that takes jewel and could use mx too (still the separation of mx RPC from ui set is not done, but hope I could get to it some day) Carlos El jue., 25 jun. 2020 a las 21:40, Alex Harui (<[email protected]>) escribió: > The top-level tag is not always mx:Application or s:Application. Some > users subclass the Application class. You could look for Jewel's URI and > not use flex-config if you see it. > > -Alex > > On 6/25/20, 11:19 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Carlos, what about mx:Application or s:Application being the condition? > > From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 7:53 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Make config: flex default? > > Hi Alex, > > the problem is that is very common to use some mx classes in other > sets. > For example in Jewel apps we use AMF. Just to mention 2 examples we can > found easily mx:HTTPService, mx:RemoteObject,... > > El jue., 25 jun. 2020 a las 18:42, Alex Harui > (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > > > It would be a bit of a hack, but the compiler could probably be > changed to > > peek at the xml namespaces in the specified .mxml file and select the > > flex-config.xml if it sees mx/spark. > > > > HTH, > > -Alex > > > > On 6/25/20, 3:35 AM, "Piotr Zarzycki" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I think that option should be mentioned in documentation and it > is > > setup in > > every example which is using MX - At least for Moonshine > projects. In > > other > > cases I don't think it should be setup as default. > > > > czw., 25 cze 2020 o 12:28 Yishay Weiss <[email protected]> > > napisał(a): > > > > > I think it’s a question of the most common use-case. In either > case > > it’s a > > > matter of setting a configuration to either royale or flex. My > > feeling is > > > that newbies are more likely to be looking for the emulation > > components at > > > this point. > > > > > > From: Harbs<mailto:[email protected]> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:09 PM > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: Make config: flex default? > > > > > > I don’t think so. We made it optional because there were > conflicts > > in the > > > CSS definitions. > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Yishay Weiss < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > We’ve been seeing new users trying to convert their > applications > > from > > > Flex and getting errors which, I think, can be solved by > setting the > > config > > > compiler option to ‘flex’. Should we make that the default? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Piotr Zarzycki > > > > Patreon: * > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cdf68b7982d2e4eaf4b2508d819343c3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637287059428991751&sdata=OS%2BefC8n6%2Blmz9u%2FxJ%2Bu8n7zi5d3Htf3iROhjFxUV0o%3D&reserved=0 > > < > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cdf68b7982d2e4eaf4b2508d819343c3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637287059428991751&sdata=OS%2BefC8n6%2Blmz9u%2FxJ%2Bu8n7zi5d3Htf3iROhjFxUV0o%3D&reserved=0 > > >* > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cdf68b7982d2e4eaf4b2508d819343c3d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637287059428991751&sdata=HOQeNzDI8ZCCB6RObd%2BoGOoWkCWiFBKC7wViIQgn1Vo%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
