flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FalconJX] compiling non-browser javascript
Date Sun, 01 May 2016 19:28:35 GMT
I manually deleted most of the core classes to get it to compile.

I’m now getting an error which I don’t know if it’s valid or a bug in Falcon:

		public function findKeyStrings(for:String):String{return null;}
		public function translateKeyString(for:String):String{return null;}

When trying to compile a class which contains code like this, I get:
ERROR /Users/harbs/Desktop/InDesign10.2/src/com/adobe/indesign/Application.as[66:33]:
'for' is not allowed here

Is “for” really not allowed as the name of a parameter, or i it a bug that the compiler
thinks it’s a for loop?


On May 1, 2016, at 3:50 PM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here’s my stab at producing ActionScript files from the OMV files: https://github.com/unhurdle/omv2as
> The output is actually pretty good. I get error-free output on InDesign files with the
exception of File types because I don’t yet have the core types linked. Photoshop output
is not as good, for the most part because the OMV files types are not all true types.
> I do have a question though (before I even got to the point where I’m trying to use
this to cross-compile code): When I run the base classes through the app, I get a bunch of
classes which do not compile into a SWC very well. At least part of the problem is due to
the fact that they confluct with core classes, and I’m not sure how to best handle this.
Here’s a link of the as code: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pziyrqj7k1ob9p7/ExtendScript.zip?dl=0
> I’m not sure how to best handle this. If anyone has good ideas, please let me know.
> On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:28 PM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was guessing that the release would probably work. I am concerned about debugging
>> I will probably try this suggestion next week and see how far I can get without further
help. Chances are I’ll be back here before I’m successful though… ;-)
>> Thanks!
>> Harbs
>> On Apr 25, 2016, at 6:27 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/25/16, 8:16 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynjala@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In the bin/js-release directory, all of the generated JavaScript is
>>>> concatenated into a single file, so it no longer uses goog.require(). That
>>>> should work in environments that cannot load multiple scripts.
>>> I was about to suggest that as well.  By default, the single-file output
>>> is minified so is hard to debug.  You can add
>>> -js-compiler-option="--compilation_level WHITESPACE_ONLY"
>>> to the cross-compile and I think you'll still get a single file without
>>> goog.require but it will be debuggable.
>>> These options are handled by the compiler code in a Publisher.
>>> MXMLFlexJSPublisher has this default behavior.  You can subclass it and
>>> create a different js-output-type get it to spit a single-file to the
>>> js-debug and a minified single-file to js-release.  It will take a long
>>> time, though, as gathering in a single file is done by the Google Closure
>>> Compiler.  But you don't to know much about compilers to make a custom
>>> Publisher.  Everything is compiled at that point and you are basically
>>> dealing with files and configs for GCC.
>>> A harder task is to make the goog.require replaceable with some other
>>> pattern.
>>> -Alex

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