flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Schmalle <teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
Date Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:35:25 GMT
Yes, you catch my drift, we need a new output type(PLAINJS) that only runs
the compiler(to make AST from ActionScript) and the emitter to produce the
js, no GCC, no SWF etc.

Mike

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> > No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is JS,
> the
> > client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based on
> > the fact it wants to produce clean JS.
>
> I'm fine with that approach as the FLEXJS_DUAL output type re-invokes the
> compiler after the swf compilation to compile the JS with FLEXJS output
> type.
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:27:03 -0400
> > Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
> > From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >
> > No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is JS,
> the
> > client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based on
> > the fact it wants to produce clean JS.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Michael Schmalle <
> > teotigraphixllc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :)
> >>>
> >>> Oh yes, I don't want to miss that either, big up for you too Mike !!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm not kidding myself, there is still a huge amount of work to be done
> to
> >> get it to work correctly based on externals that are more complicated
> then
> >> the ones I did right now. I think I managed to get packages(js
> namespaces)
> >> working but I really haven't tested them.
> >>
> >> On top of this, the FlexJS emitter needs a bunch of configuration added
> >> through it's emitter stage (to not produce GCC comments, inherits etc).
> >>
> >> What will probably happen is there will just be a JS output type that
> >> subclasses the FlexJS emitter and turns everything off, then it's not a
> >> rats nest of config arguments.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Frédéric THOMAS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400
> >>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ
> Integration
> >>>> From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> >>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Great job Fred, so this means we just need the FlexJS SDK and it will
> >>> work
> >>>> right? Do we still have to setup a library for code completion etc.?
> >>>>
> >>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> >>> webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Alex,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I understand what you did but not sure I could reproduce, I wasn't
> that
> >>>>> far in my experiment but I still miss the complete round trip logic
> of
> >>>>> jBurg, I guess I would need to spend more time on it to get it
> better.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whatever, that's awesome, we can now compile and debug without any
> >>>>> dependencies on the Flex SDK in IntelliJ :-) big up !!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will commit soon what I've done too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Frédéric THOMAS
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>>>> From: aharui@adobe.com
> >>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ
> >>> Integration
> >>>>>> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:19:47 +0000
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OK, I think I got it. Try my latest commit.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/12/15, 12:41 PM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>OK, I will work on it. Thanks for trying, it is rather strange
> stuff.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 6/12/15, 9:16 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Hi Alex,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Well, I've been trying to get why I always get a cost
"not
> feasible"
> >>> for
> >>>>>>>>your function but I'm failing to understand the logic
of jBurg,
> maybe
> >>>>>>>>seing your solution will unligthen me but at the moment
I'm totally
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>>the dark.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

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