+1 On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Carlos Rovira < carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> 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 >
