I've been unable to follow the details of what you tried, but if
ROYALE_COMPILER_REPO wasn't pointing to the equivalent of a built
royale-compiler repo, then I wouldn't expect it to work. I believe a binary
artifact would suffice instead of an actual repo, but I could be wrong. But it
may have been safer to figure out what was missing from a binary artifact and
fix that. I think what is happening with the changes to ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME
is that there is a whole new configuration being supported (compiler outside of
the royale-asjs folder). Makes me nervous, but hey, I'm not the one supporting
it.
It could be that the single library path option is broken and/or has been
abandoned. The compiler used to use -library-path as the single path option.
But you could specify -js-library-path and/or -swf-library-path to specify
JS-specific or SWF-specific lists of libraries. Pretty sure that's the default
configuration these days, I think because it was easiest to have the builds
produce JS-only and js-swf packages.
If you are not using SWF output, just building the xJS swcs should be
sufficient. If you are using both, you "could" have a configuration that just
uses the non-jS swcs but you'd probably have to use a different -config.xml
file.
HTH,
-Alex
On 11/30/20, 1:13 PM, "Edward Stangler" <estang...@bradmark.com> wrote:
As I mentioned earlier (especially in the step-by-step that I posted),
setting ROYALE_COMPILER_REPO was also not enough. (ROYALE_TYPEDEFS_REPO
wasn't necessary, as far I could tell.) The build.xml file changes were
still needed.
I'm not familiar with the single library path possibility. So far that
I've seen, there has to be a frameworks/lib/x.swc and a
frameworks/js/lib/xJS.swc library. If I only replace one, my compiles
(of the final apps) don't see the changes in both SWF and JS.
On 11/30/2020 10:20 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Oops! I should have said ROYALE_COMPILER_REPO and ROYALE_TYPEDEFS_REPO
(instead of ROYALE_X_HOME), so tweaks to how the R_X_HOME properties worked
wouldn't be needed.
>
> The SWF SWCs are intended to allow the app developer to only specify one
set of libraries on the library-path in order to build both SWF and JS output,
so the transpilation is required to be in that SWC.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/30/20, 12:43 AM, "Edward Stangler" wrote:
>
>
> I actually do want to generate the SWF SWCs. My point was that during
> the SWF SWC build, there's no reason to build JS. For example, when
> building Basic.swc, it doesn't need to target JS. But while building
> BasicJS.swc, then obviously SWF and JS targets are needed. I'm not
> familiar with the IDE issues, though.
>
> (BTW, on another machine using the SWCs in the final app, running a
> -debug=true compile for JS is much, much faster.)
>
> I'll try the anti-virus thing, thanks.
>
> -=-=-
>
> My original point of this thread was that I did set
ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME
> (and other stuff) to a nightly build, and it didn't work. So I
> explained the exact steps that I used, and how I could modify the
> build.xml files to handle ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME correctly.
>
> So, there's probably more work to do (i.e. perhaps in prebuild, as
Harbs
> pointed out), but the modified build.xml files will at least make it
> mostly work, by doing something that seems reasonable (actually
reading
> the environment variable ROYALE_COMPILER_HOME).
