flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject Re: [FlexJS] ASDoc: Any reason for additional config options?
Date Wed, 21 Dec 2016 18:48:35 GMT
Hi Alex,

I simply removed the JS version of CSSTextField as this wasn’t referenced anywhere and with
that change I managed to proceed. I am still struggling with a static bleed issue as the compiler
state seems to be shared between the differenct compiler types, but I think I’ll manage
to fix that soon (got holidays fort wo weeks now)


Am 21.12.16, 16:23 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com>:

    On 12/21/16, 3:52 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:
    >So far so good. The SWF xml outupt looks gread, even if I don’t know why
    >classes, index and tags are Json files, but I’ll fix that later.
    Basically, I did JSON output first, and was only half-way through the DITA
    output when I put it down to deal with other things.  Also as I think I
    mentioned earlier, I'm sure not every XML tag is in there, and the DITA
    from MXMLC is per-package but Falcon is only doing per-class.  Not sure if
    that matters to the IDEs that handle DITA (apparently not HTML) in the
    >Unfortunately I can’t compile the JS version of Core (the first module I
    >tried) because of a missing definition of the JS version of TextField ...
    >where does this come from? Any ideas?
    Is this flash.text.TextField?  There shouldn't be one, AFAIK.  Might just
    be a COMPILE flags issue or some code that needs to be wrapped in

View raw message