On 11/28/12 10:01 AM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de"
<christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> Yeah ... I meant Adobe :-)
>
> Well I think the form in which Adobe provides the stuff would be a thing we
> could discuss ...
> I guess there are a lot of options.
> - The one side would be downloader-mojo simply downloading the normal zip
> files containinig AIR SDK or Flash Player stuff and mavenizing that on the
> client.
> - The other side would be downloading fully mavenized resources directly from
> an Adobe server.
> I guess there could be a number of options inbetween too.
>
> I would prefer the option with fully mavenized resources being downloaded
> directly from Adobe, but I am assuming it would probably be the other side
> that would be more realistic to hope for.
> (I think Adobe doesn't want to do anything to support us in regard of Maven
> ... at least that's my current assumption).
Actually, I have the ok from Runtime product management to let me manage the
download server and place pom.xmls as needed. But that's about it. And they
want assurance that licenses are being accepted before downloading. So, if
we can make this work by giving me or showing me how to set up pom.xmls I
will go ask for login credentials to the downloads server, setup a couple of
folders and we can start actually trying it.
Adobe does want to support us, but the fact is, Adobe isn't getting any
money from this so they aren't going to spend a lot of time on it.
> With this option it would be good if there was a systematic way of providing
> them so we wouldn't have to maintain a mapping table for mapping versions to
> URLs but could calculate the url.
> Something like
> "http://download.adobe.com/runtimes/flash/{flashversion}-{os}.zip"; or
> "http://download.adobe.com/runtimes/air/{airversion}-{os}.zip"; would be great.
> Doesnt actually have to be that URL, just that we could calculate the URL for
> it by setting "type" (flash/air), "version" and "os" (win/mac/lnx).
I believe I get to control a new set of folders containing runtime SDKs.
The runtime team will probably keep using their current scheme. They will
not update our new folder area when a new release goes out so we will have
to keep track and maintain that ourselves. But I think I can use whatever
folder naming scheme you want to use.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. November 2012 18:34
> An: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [POLL] Maven and Apache Flex
>
>
>
>
> On 11/28/12 8:23 AM, "Greg Reddin" <gred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:49 AM, christofer.d...@c-ware.de <
>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>>
>>> What would you all think of the following solution:
>>> - Apache deploys the Apache Flex FDK artifacts in a public maven repo
>>> (Without the Apache stuff you need a license for)
> Apache stuff or Adobe Stuff?
>
>>> - In the maven-flex-plugin suite there is one mojo that binds to
>>> mavens "initialize" phase and checks the availability of the Apache
>>> artifacts. If they are missing it prompts the user if he accepts the
>>> license agreement (An option to allow a non-interactive build would
>>> be good for running on
>>> CI-Servers)
> So, if I understand correctly, you will use the presence of the Adobe
> artifacts to skip prompting the user to accept the license?
>
> That sounds good to me. So then all Adobe needs to do is put pom.xml files
> alongside the different AIR SDK downloads?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
