royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. product name vs artifact names
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2017 22:53:48 GMT
Hi,

I like Alex's idea and I don't see any problem if we will have clear
information on our website what is for what is not for. I actually was
waiting for some package which is small and free from Flash Player - and
here we go!

I have to admit since I did start using FlexJS I haven't touch SWF part at
all. If user come to the website and see Royale project, than go to
download page and will have nice description - We will not lost.

We need to remember only about possibility to switch - If I'm using  "
apache-royale-flexjs-x.y.z-bin.zip" I should be able to switch "
apache-royale-js-x.y.z-bin.zip".

It is only delivery - examples, tutorials etc. will not point to any
specific package, unless it is JS only like MDL examples.

Piotr


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.
>
>


-- 

Piotr Zarzycki

mobile: +48 880 859 557
skype: zarzycki10

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://pl.linkedin.com/in/piotr-zarzycki-92a53552>

GitHub: https://github.com/piotrzarzycki21

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message