On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Gordon Smith <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> A large majority of people replying to this thread favor SDK, Falcon, TLF, > BlazeDS, etc. being quasi-independent sub projects within the overall Flex > project, so that's what Carol is planning for. > > I think we should discuss this further at the end of which a vote should be taken. I don't think we are done discussing this yet to make this change. I dint see a strong reason for Falcon to be a top level project anywhere in this thread. Thanks, Om > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 14, 2012, at 10:23 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Gordon Smith <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >>> Falcon is a new version of the Actionscript compiler. > >> > >> Falcon is a reimplementation of mxmlc and compc. The AS support is very > >> good. (It will ship as FB 4.7.) The MXML support is incomplete but > Falcon > >> can compile the framework test file Checkinapp.mxml. > >> > >>> Does it support mxml as well? Or would that be a separate top level > >> project? > >> > >> See above. > >> > >>> What do we call the compiler that is currently inside trunk? > >> > >> I call it "the legacy compiler". > >> > >>> If falcon gets a new top level project, shouldnt the current compiler > >> get its own top level project? > >> > >> I don't have an opinion on that. I hope the old compiler dies as soon as > >> possible. > >> > >>> Does Falcon work with exisiting flex sdk? > >> > >> It 's intended to eventually, but it's not yet ready to compile and run > >> all SDK SWCs and tests yet. > >> > >>> If I create new components inside incubator/flex/SDK/trunk/, should I > >> worry about who Falcon will work with it? How would I set up my > project in > >> that case? > >> > >> Unless you want to contribute to Falcon, you shouldn't worry about it. > At > >> some point, if it becomes a suitable replacement for the legacy > compiler, > >> we will switch over and everything should just work the same. > >> > >>> Should I have copies of my new components in both > >> incubator/flex/SDK/trunk/ and incubator/flex/Falcon/trunk/ to run both > >> Mustella tests and Falcon's tests? > >> > >> No; incubator/flex/Falcon/trunk will be only for Falcon's Java code. No > >> framework components will live there. > >> > >>> Does Falcon share any code with Falcon JS? > >> > >> Yes, it shares a front end (lexer/parser/symbol table). FalconJS and > >> Falcon have different back ends (code generators). FalconJS is not ready > >> for donation. > >> > >>> If yes, how might we want to change the repo structure if/when FalconJS > >> is contributed to Apache Flex? > >> > >> We can figure that out when FalconJS is ready, but I think making it a > >> sibling of Falcon would be best. It could share Falcon's front end just > by > >> putting Falcon's JAR on its classpath. > >> > >> - Gordon > >> > >> > > Thanks Gordon! > > > > From what I read, it looks like Falcon is a new feature that will be > added > > to Apache Flex. I believe it should be under > /flex/trunk/modules/falcon. > > And since it might be highly unstable, we should probably create a > 'falcon' > > branch to do this in. Especially since you want to replace > > /flex/trunk/modules/asc and /flex/trunk/modules/compile with the falcon > > compiler. > > > > I think this structure follows what we have been discussing in the > > branching strategy threads. > > > > Elsewhere, you said: > > > > If Flex has independent subprojects like SDK, Falcon, TLF, etc., how > would > >> we tie them all together to do testing? With environment variables that > say > >> "use this branch of the SDK, this branch of Falcon, this branch of TLF, > >> etc."? > >> > > > > Keeping it under /flex/trunk/modules/falcon would solve this problem too, > > right? > > > > Eventually we should throwaway the /flex/trunk/modules/asc/ (legacy > > compiler) and rename falcon to asc as well. > > > > As I see it, Falcon is a codename for a new version of the compiler. We > > are mixing functional names like "asc" and "compiler" with codenames like > > "falcon". What happens when we want to build a new version of > actionscript > > compiler after falcon? We dont want to have that existing alongside with > > another codename as well. > > > > Thanks, > > Om >
