royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Idylog - Nicolas Granon" <ngra...@idylog.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:33:23 GMT
All of this is perfectly true.

Nicolas Granon


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : carlos.rovira@gmail.com [mailto:carlos.rovira@gmail.com] De la
> part de Carlos Rovira
> Envoyé : lundi 2 octobre 2017 20:15
> À : dev@royale.apache.org
> Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
> 
> We must think in users as people doesn't know anythings about us. As
> well people writing articles about us, will want to check quickly what
> we do, and we need to be simple and fast.
> So for me, if I use for example NPM, the last proposal is the correct
> one:
> 
> npm install royale -g
> 
> If people that land in Royale, see lots of combinations we'll be dead
> before having the opportunity for that people to reach the great
> features we can provide
> 
> So our mantra should be "keep it simple" to be able to make people
> outside our world have the opportunity to be attracted by our tech.
> 
> I must to say that we always can change this to something more complex
> in the future as we get people demanding it, but I'd prefer not to do
> this at this stage since I'm afraid to lost people due to excessive
> options, packages and bundles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2017-10-02 19:25 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid>:
> 
> > I changed the subject so sorry if this appears like a new thread.
> >
> > Let's be a bit more explicit and see if that helps.  After getting
> the
> > packaging to start to work, I've changed my thoughts a bit.  I
> > actually think I agree with Carlos and Erik.
> >
> > I am proposing that we post two different -bin.zip/tar.gz bundles on
> > the Apache mirrors, which is our main distribution channel.  We will
> > only post one source artifact because the build script can generate
> > both bundles based on environment variables.  We will also post
> dozens
> > of Jars and SWCs to Maven Central.  And I think we will have an NPM
> distribution as well.
> > For the purposes of this discussion, wherever you see .zip, also
> > assume we are providing a .tar.gz file as well.
> >
> > Because we will only have one source artifact, we will call for a
> vote
> > on a product named: "Apache Royale x.y.z".  The source artifact will
> > be
> > called:
> >
> >   apache-royale-x.y.z-src.zip
> >
> > We will provide convenience binaries for IDE users.  They will be
> called:
> >
> >   apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip (has SWCs for SWF and requires
> > prerequisites)
> >
> > And:
> >
> >   apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip (can be unzipped and used as-is)
> >
> > If we create other targets in the future, hopefully we will still
> only
> > have one source artifact and, for a webasm target the binary artifact
> > would be called.
> >
> >   apache-royale-webasm-x.y.z-bin.zip
> >
> > I believe this conforms to Apache conventions about artifact names.
> > We could call the "flexjs" artifact:
> >
> >
> >   apache-royale-swf-x.y.z-bin.zip
> >
> > But I am mindful of Justin Hill's desire to keep FlexJS in the name
> > somewhere.
> >
> > Meanwhile, everything that goes up on Maven will be under the group
> id:
> >
> >   org.apache.royale.compiler (for compiler jars)
> >   org.apache.royale.typedefs (for typedefs SWCs)
> >   org.apache.royale.framework (for framework SWCs)
> >
> > Note that in Apache FlexJS 0.8.0, we used the group ids:
> >
> >   org.apache.flex.flexjs.compiler
> >   org.apache.flex.flexjs.typedefs
> >   org.apache.flex.flexjs.framework
> >
> > So there is a project.productname pattern today, but I am proposing
> > that we don't need a separate product name because the IDE products
> > primarily differ by which SWCs go in the binary artifacts (there
> might
> > be a different default config.xml file too), and Maven users pick
> > their "product" by choosing which archetype they start with and/or
> > what SWCs they depend on.
> >
> >
> > Maven artifact names also include a classifier for the target
> platform.
> > For example, in the last release, Apache FlexJS posted to Maven
> Central:
> >
> >
> >
> >   Basic-0.8.0-js.swc
> >   Basic-0.8.0-swf.swc
> >
> > I am proposing we keep that classifier pattern as we can probably use
> > a classifier for WebASM some day as in:
> >
> >   Basic-0.8.0-webasm.swc
> >
> > Last is NPM.  I don't know NPM that well, so this could certainly be
> > wrong.  But I think today, you can install Apache FlexJS 0.8.0 by
> doing:
> >
> >
> >   npm install flexjs -g
> >
> >
> > If we are going to use NPM to install the equivalent of the proposed
> > apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip then I think that should be called
> > royale-flexjs in NPM as well so you would type:
> >
> >
> >   npm install royale-flexjs -g
> >
> > And if you can use NPM to get the equivalent of
> > apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip that would be done via:
> >
> >
> >   npm install royale-js -g
> >
> > But I don't know how many folks will need to do that if you can just
> > unzip apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip and use it.  Not sure if we need
> > to make something available just by typing:
> >
> >
> >   npm install royale -g
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> > On 10/2/17, 3:25 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> Rovira"
> > <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product
> > >names)
> > >and packages will only confuse people coming to Royale.
> > >As well, I think we already manage outputs via compiler params to
> > >dictate if we want to target one or more outputs.
> > >So I'll be more happy with only one name and only one package that
> > >could output JS, WASM, SWF, ....)
> > >
> > >People coming from Flex will find us and will know we can be their
> > >solutions Meanwhile people that search for a frontend tech, will
> come
> > >to read about Angular, React, ...and hope in some time Royale. We
> > >don't want those people be contaminated for old Flash or Flex that
> > >could make them not choose us for something is not relevant to us.
> > >
> > >So I think we should always look forward and as we decided to remove
> > >"JS", we should as well not have a "FlexJS" version inside
> > >
> > >That's my 2ctn
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >2017-10-02 11:25 GMT+02:00 Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> With the renaming effort planned to start right after the
> 'packaging'
> > >> branch lands, I think it makes sense to discuss and vote on the
> > >>naming of  the product(s) of this project.
> > >>
> > >> Buried in another thread Alex remarked the following, which I
> think
> > >>is an  excellent suggestion:
> > >>
> > >> "When we were discussing this earlier, we were discussing two
> > >> IDE-friendly release artifacts, one designed for folks migrating
> > >> from Apache Flex and another for folks not interested in SWF.  In
> > >> the packaging branch I have most of that working.
> > >>
> > >> We were discussing calling the migration package 'FlexJS' and the
> > >>other one  Royale or RoyaleJS.  The latter is considered by some
> > >>folks to mean "Royale  for JS".  The package names would be
> > >>apache-royale-flexjs-<version> and  maybe
> > >>apache-royale-royalejs-<version>. The project name would definitely
> > >>be Royale but I think we want to have artifacts that denote target
> > >>markets."
> > >>
> > >> A strong case has been made to leave off the "JS" off all but the
> > >> legacy/migration package, which makes sense to me as well.
> > >>
> > >> I think there are plans to have this project create multiple
> > >>product (e.g.
> > >> one that does AS3->WebAssembly), so I do not think that we should
> > >>name the  current product 'Royale'. It will be increasingly
> > >>confusing to have a  product with the same name as the project and
> > >>then have other products from  the same project with totally
> > >>different names. I suggest we come up with a  naming convention
> that
> > >>will reflect the functionality of the various  products and their
> > >>link to the project. E.g. (off the top of my head, just  to show
> > >>what I mean): royale-as-js, royale-as-wasm, etc.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> EdB
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ix Multimedia Software
> > >>
> > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> > >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> > >>
> > >> T. 06-51952295
> > >> I.
> > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > www.ixsoftware.nl&data
> > >>=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097fed7f%
> > 7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c1
> > >>78decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&sdata=
> > nEfouPWLXrQ1CPihQcCdDFbooP65u
> > >>S8pKrOUcJvTIp8%3D&reserved=0
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >
> > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> > >scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> > >34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> > sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNo
> > >yL6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0>
> > >
> > >Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >Director General
> > >
> > >M: +34 607 22 60 05
> > >
> > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> > >copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> > >4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> > sdata=%2FF7eVcgTrIhRNoy
> > >L6GsUiFrhOZt0NT48k7jhbrEqQzk%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> > ><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> > >s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbff5f7320b37491b462008d5097f
> > ed7f%7Cfa7b1b5a
> > >7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636425367408770456&
> > sdata=%2BBVYrV2H3MFg
> > >4ZkU7VeFER3IkRNmx1D5fKEOnDVGNJA%3D&reserved=0>
> > >
> > >
> > >Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> > >contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido
> este
> > >mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
> por
> > >esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
> > >
> > >De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> > >comunicamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo
> responsable
> > >es CODEOSCOPIC S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar
> la
> > >prestación del servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> > >derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus
> > >datos dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11,
> > >28036, Madrid con la documentación necesaria.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
> 
> Carlos Rovira
> 
> Director General
> 
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> 
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> 
> 
> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video>
> 
> 
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> contener información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
> mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por
> esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
> 
> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> comunicamos que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable
> es CODEOSCOPIC S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la
> prestación del servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted
> derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos
> dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036,
> Madrid con la documentación necesaria.


Mime
View raw message