flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Schmalle <teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript to javascript compile
Date Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:53:21 GMT
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> >> Also, have you seen anything that might suggest we can disable
> IntelliJ's
> >> ECMA natives so it uses the JS.swc Object definitions?
> >
> >
>  AFAIK, you can't switch to another ECMA file, it is hardcoded for the
> Flex Plugin, a simple go to definition on Object and you will see the
> lib it depends on, in JS, they did it more flexible, not in Flex.
>
> Can't you change the name with something like JSObject and change it back
> at compile time instead ?
>

The problem with this is for natural flow, everything extends Object. So
for a normal object incode, you would not get what JSObect was. Do you get
what I mean?

We can make a JSObject but in IntelliJ, it will not be the base class of
everything.

HAHAHA Damn, I just had a brain flash, I I rewrote the  compiler to have
everything that is a base extend JSObject, it would work in IntelliJ! haha

Mike



>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > From: webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript to
> javascript compile
> > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:44:06 +0100
> >
> >
> >> Fred, Anything you need help on or questions about the compiler just
> ask.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >> Also, have you seen anything that might suggest we can disable
> IntelliJ's
> >> ECMA natives so it uses the JS.swc Object definitions?
> >
> > AFAIK, you can't switch to another ECMA file, it is hardcoded for the
> Flex Plugin, a simple go to definition on Object and you will see the lib
> it depends on, in JS, they did it more flexible, not in Flex.
> >
> > Frédéric THOMAS
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:19:16 -0400
> >> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript
> to javascript compile
> >> From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >>
> >> Alex, excuse my ignorance but "what" are your plans for integrating
> this,
> >> are you getting the JS.wsc to be built?
> >>
> >> Fred, Anything you need help on or questions about the compiler just
> ask.
> >>
> >> Also, have you seen anything that might suggest we can disable
> IntelliJ's
> >> ECMA natives so it uses the JS.swc Object definitions?
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>So, why to generate the .abc and compare its modify date while we
can
> do
> >>>>>that with the source file ?
> >>>>
> >>>> We would compare source file date against .abc file date and then use
> the
> >>>> abc as if it were from a swc and not compile the source file.
> >>>
> >>> Can't do more on anything today but will follow that path, indeed I
> guess
> >>> I will need yours or Mike's help regarding the compilation itself at
> some
> >>> point.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Frédéric THOMAS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------
> >>>> From: aharui@adobe.com
> >>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript
> to
> >>> javascript compile
> >>>> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:48:36 +0000
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/10/15, 8:36 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Volunteers are welcome to try to fix it. Or implement a whole
new
> >>>>>> incremental compile strategy. I think I’ve noticed that Java
> compiler
> >>>>>> writes out an .class file and uses file dates to determine whether
> to
> >>>>>> compile again and seems to do that very quickly. I’ve pondered
> whether
> >>>>>> Falcon would get similar gains if we wrote out .abc files.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So, it seems the compiler maintains a kind of session between the
> >>>>>compilation, how ?
> >>>>
> >>>> IIRC, the compiler would checksum public APIs and write it to a
> temporary
> >>>> file. The strategy of only re-compiling files affected by public APIs
> >>>> changed in other files is interesting, but seemed to be buggy.
> >>>>
> >>>>>So, why to generate the .abc and compare its modify date while we
can
> do
> >>>>>that with the source file ?
> >>>>
> >>>> We would compare source file date against .abc file date and then use
> the
> >>>> abc as if it were from a swc and not compile the source file.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Alex
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>

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