Hi Chris, I think you are choosing the right path. People using old SDKs could use old flexmojos dependency...people using apache flex could use your new version. So I think your plan should be ok for all users of Flex.
2012/11/7 christofer.d...@c-ware.de <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > Hi, > > as most of you probably know, I'm currently working on a tool to generate > Mavenized FDKs. In parallel I am adjusting Flexmojos to support the new > Apache FDKs so people can build Flex applications using Maven. > > So far so good. After finishing the Generator and adjusting Flexmojos to > all of my changes, the last step was to generate the 4.8 FDK using the > maven group id org.apache.flex instead of com.adobe.flex. > > Now this introduced MAJOR problems. Currently you could use Flexmojos with > 4.8, if you compile the entire Plugin against the group id of apache or you > could use the adobe fdks after compiling it against the adobe group id. > The main reason is that otherwise Maven imports two versions of the jars > (the one of the FDK you want and the one Flexmojos was compiled against). > > Sorting this out would be a total nightmare as there are really magical > hacks working inside the build which cause any change in the scopes of > dependencies to blow everything up. > I guess this is because Flexmojos includes insanely much code for > supporting legacy FDKs (back to 2.0 FDKs) and a ton of different tools for > different parts of the build lifecycle. > > My question now would be if it would not be better to officially leave > Flexmojos to be compiled against com.adobe.flex and to include an option in > the generator to generate the Apache FDKs to the Adobe namespace and to let > users be happy with that and use it. > > In parallel I would volunteer to start work on a new plugin aimed at > apache flex, but leaving away support of the Adobe FDKs. I would suggest to > concentrate on the main path, supporting only apache fdks, only flexunit > 4.1 for unit-testing, only the newest granite code generator and so on. In > this case this should be a manageable task, even if it will take a while. > As soon as the Version 1.0 is out we could start extending this to support > more stuff our users would need. I think continuing to add more and more > code to Flexmojos will only make it an unmaintainable monster whith all the > problems comming from that. > > As I mentioned, I would volunteer to start such a thing and I think using > Flexmojos as an inspiration on how to possibly implement something like > that it should be manageable. > > What do you think? > > Chris > -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 35 57 77 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
