flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Wasilewski <devudes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJx] Prototype ActionScript -> JavaScript compiler code up in svn
Date Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:55:18 GMT
Hi guys,

I've lost a track on the Falcon JS for a while, (busy freelancing to 
survive and pay my bills), but at time to time visiting the list.
And don't quite understand the status. Is it like we have 3 different 
people working on their own/favourite implementation at the same time?

I've seen Michael done significant progress with his rewrite from scratch.
But in my mind it wasn't excluding 'goog' approach for JS output since 
he mentioned is not there yet.

I am sure bit and pieces of this puzzle can be put together. And even if 
we have a prototype of Falcon in current form, Michael decided to 
investigate different approach.
Some say it is not worth it, but I do appreciate his effort because this 
project is on research state, not production ready. And this very 
project needs solid foundations to start from. We don't want to build on 
top of over-bloated solution only because it has been done. I've seen 
many things done in my life, but quite useless as well.

No effort in order to try out different solutions and approaches is wasted.
And as I said, things can be put together especially by people have 
learn something during research time and have more experience now.

On 12/14/2012 8:33 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> So, basically, nobody loves the "goog" approach I spend the last weeks
> working on (based mostly on feedback from the various discussion on
> the list).
> Or, let me rephrase, nobody cares enough to contribute to it?
> EdB
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Frank Wienberg <frank@jangaroo.net> wrote:
>> This is great news, Mike! I will also try to dig into your code this
>> weekend.
>> In the meantime, I've been busy figuring out the "essence" of a new
>> JavaScript runtime format that uses the principles described in my blog,
>> but relies on RequireJS (not goog!) and ECMAScript 5 API, making it way
>> more concise than the current Jangaroo Runtime. For IE8 and other non-ES5
>> browsers, we would then use polyfills for all ES5 functions used.
>> Let's see if I can get an approval from my company to contribute; if it
>> takes too long, I'd blog about the concepts and you or someone else would
>> have to implement them.
>> Greetings
>> -Frank-
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Michael Schmalle
>> <apache@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
>>> Not really,
>>> I rebuilt everything from scratch. Yes I copied about half the code in
>>> pieces. I purposely put it all back together myself so I knew what was
>>> going on. So every class in the committed code was assembled by me, to
>>> figure out it's function if relevant to the new design.
>>> Besides most of it had either be deleted of changed because I am not
>>> targeting SWF what so ever.
>>> I tried to stick with the same base implementation so we kept the
>>> multi-threaded Falcon parsing.
>>> Take a look at the org.apache.flex.compiler.**internal.js.codegen package.
>>> Specifically ASBlockWalker from that class alone you should see that this
>>> is a completely different implementation.
>>> A note to others looking at the code, in the ASBlockWalker I have mixed
>>> some javascript emitting specific to the closure compiler. I want to change
>>> this and have a base class not dependent on anything but to be able to
>>> override it.
>>> Case in point, most expressions and statements map the same in AS to JS,
>>> so having a base implementation not tied to anything will be a positive
>>> thing. I also don't like mixing design specific things in the base
>>> traversing class, another reason why I want an abstract base or two.
>>> Anyway, very prototype code and I reserve the right to yank things around.
>>> :) I just wanted to get it up to show others there might be an easier and
>>> more flexible way to get to where we need to go without the BURM.
>>> Mike
>>> Quoting Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>:
>>>   I will try to look this weekend.
>>>> Can you briefly describe the important files to look at?  Did you copy the
>>>> FalconJS files then do most of your work in a few of them?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Alex
>>>> On 12/13/12 3:37 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <apache@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> Well, I spent the last 4 days working on this to where it was
>>>>> something we all could start talking about.
>>>>> Is it viable?, I really think so. I have spent a lot of time tinkering
>>>>> with the framework, take a look. It's in my whiteboard for now under
>>>>> Eclipse projects.
>>>>> I know there was just a discussion about .project files but I
>>>>> committed the .project and .classpath for both application and test
>>>>> project, just like the rest of Falcon.
>>>>> I'm working on more documentation. A thing to note about the code, my
>>>>> goal is to product ActionScript first, I will explain my thinking
>>>>> later but, since I'm the one putting this together, that is what I
>>>>> decided was best for testing first. Once we get all ActionScript
>>>>> generating, we start overriding things for JavaScript specific
>>>>> implementations.
>>>>> Source [0]
>>>>> Right now I have 103 unit tests ALL passing for expressions and
>>>>> statements. Its a good start.
>>>>> Note; I have not don't a build file, if anybody wants to go for it.
>>>>> Please, I hate them. :)
>>>>> Peace,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> - [0] https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/**
>>>>> mschmalle/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/mschmalle/>
>>>> --
>>>> Alex Harui
>>>> Flex SDK Team
>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>> --
>>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>>> http://www.teotigraphix.com
>>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com

View raw message