flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJx] state/no state
Date Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:14:49 GMT

Quoting Avi Kessner <akessner@gmail.com>:

> Uneducated question here.
> If we can't read what is spit out, how can make tests to make sure that the
> gestalt is correct?

Erik didn't mean we can't read, when emitting all String data is  
pushed into a Writer buffer.

> If we can read what is spit out, why not read it and remain stateless?

We can, he is saying go back and read what is in the buffer currently,  
which he "could" do but would be extremely unwise.

> I'm assuming that as time goes on, we'll want to read the output to
> optimize it on some level.

No, we optimize when the output is being assembled.

Erik; I just looked at the code again and remember, my head is whacked  
but, instead of recording like you are in the method, I think "pre  
proccessing" members in one shot before you loop through each to emit  
it would be a better approach.

My thought is, if in the future you need to pre-proccess any other  
things before the member emittion, that it's all done in one place and  
you can have state from that point. Using this, the emit methods will  
still be dumb, in the fact they will only write out what currently  

I think I will write something to show you what I mean in a day or two.



> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I
> and the number 47
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Michael Schmalle
> <apache@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
>> I knew I looked at what you did before.
>> I see no problem with that Erik, if you test visitAcessor() and it does
>> what you want and in the context of the method which is to test the
>> production of a unit where the unit here is a field and
>> Object.defineProperty() so that is good.
>> Does my thinking about state make sense to you with this example? We are
>> trying to avoid crossed wires.
>> Mike
>> Quoting Erik de Bruin <erik@ixsoftware.nl>:
>>  Hi,
>>> I'm aware we're trying to keep a state-less thing going with FJx, but
>>> I ran into an issue that I'm not sure how to solve without adding some
>>> kind of storage (private variable) on the 'goog' emitter.
>>> The thing is that a property has/can have both a getter and a setter
>>> accessor. For a full 'goog' implementation, in addition to emitting
>>> 'Object.defineProperty' for each, we also want to add a property
>>> declaration on the prototype, to set the type. We want to add this
>>> declaration only once, so my solution is to 'remember' if I already
>>> added it in a private variable, since I know of no other way of
>>> checking if I have already written something to the output.
>>> Am I doing it right?
>>> EdB
>>> --
>>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>> T. 06-51952295
>>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>> --
>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
>> http://www.teotigraphix.com
>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com

Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC

View raw message