flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: git commit: [flex-asjs] [refs/heads/develop] - Uploads are assumed to be POST
Date Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:35:08 GMT
Bummer.  It looks like you are using a custom template and I never tried
that.  I think you can just check for a null mainCU and get past that.

On 7/12/17, 10:11 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

>Maybe I’m doing something wrong, but I get the following error when I
>tried using -skip-transpile:
>
>     [java] java.lang.NullPointerException
>org.apache.flex.compiler.internal.projects.FlexJSProject.computeTargetAttr
>ibutes(FlexJSProject.java:354)org.apache.flex.compiler.internal.codegen.mx
>ml.flexjs.MXMLFlexJSPublisher.writeTemplate(MXMLFlexJSPublisher.java:554)o
>rg.apache.flex.compiler.internal.codegen.mxml.flexjs.MXMLFlexJSPublisher.p
>ublish(MXMLFlexJSPublisher.java:345)org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJ
>SCFlex.compile(MXMLJSCFlex.java:387)org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJ
>SCFlex._mainNoExit(MXMLJSCFlex.java:245)org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.M
>XMLJSCFlex.mainNoExit(MXMLJSCFlex.java:202)org.apache.flex.compiler.client
>s.MXMLJSC._mainNoExit(MXMLJSC.java:352)org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MX
>MLJSC.mainNoExit(MXMLJSC.java:287)org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJSC
>.staticMainNoExit(MXMLJSC.java:247)org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJS
>C.main(MXMLJSC.java:229)
>     [java]
>     [java]
>     [java] Java Result: 3
>
>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Trace supports multiple parameters and concatenates them with " "
>> in-between.
>> 
>> If you want to investigate more, you can use -sdk-js-lib to point to a
>> hacked version of Language.js with goog.DEBUG around the "rest" code.
>> 
>> I think you can also just modify what is in bin/js-debug and run the
>> compiler with the -skip-transpile option and it won't re-transpile and
>> just pass js-debug files to GCC and generate a new js-release output.
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 7/12/17, 9:11 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> That line was what was left of the trace function.
>>> 
>>> The reason the trace function is not completely empty is because it has
>>> this code generated from "…rest” at the start of the function:
>>> rest = Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments, 0);
>>> 
>>> I have no idea why that code is necessary. Maybe if it was not
>>>generated
>>> and the function was truly empty, the trace calls would be stripped out
>>> as well?
>>> 
>>> Leftover trace calls elsewhere in the code look something like this:
>>> uM('unexpected condition in deferredBindingsHandler’);
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> If it were up to me, we'd strip traces based on the optimize compiler
>>>> option.  I think that's how it worked in the Flex SDK.
>>>> 
>>>> I thought GCC had enough dead-code-removal logic to remove
>>>> Language.trace
>>>> once it saw that trace effectively did nothing.
>>>> 
>>>> I can't seem to piece together from this thread what the original AS
>>>>was
>>>> and what the un-minified JS output was.  Maybe there's something about
>>>> the
>>>> JS output that isn't right.  It is strange to see the string name of
>>>>the
>>>> trace function.
>>>> 
>>>> Regarding a logging system, I think folks are just used to trace and
>>>>the
>>>> cool thing about JS right now is that you can replace functions at
>>>> runtime, so a logging bead would just replace Language.trace().
>>>> 
>>>> -Alex
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/12/17, 6:44 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting scenarios. I would not have thought of that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we could figure out how to strip the function call and leave the
>>>>> parameter, the compiler would strip out the contents if it could be
>>>>> safely removed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So trace(“something”) would become “something” which is en empty
>>>>> statement and would be stripped out.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course, I have no idea how to go about doing that… ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Harbs
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynjala@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Probably the same with function calls too:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> trace(someFunction());
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They wanted this to remain:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> someFunction();
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Josh Tynjala
>>>>>><joshtynjala@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One thing to keep in mind with stripping out trace() calls is
that
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> developers expect any modifications to variables that happen
inside
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> arguments to remain. I remember a while back someone at Adobe
>>>>>>> mentioning
>>>>>>> that people complained when something like this was completely
>>>>>>> stripped out:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> trace(doSomething++);
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Because they expected this part to remain:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> doSomething++;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> My bad. It does in fact compile down to this:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> function 
>>>>>>>> uM(a){a=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,0)}w('org.apach
>>>>>>>> e.flex.utils.Language.trace',uM);
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So trace does not actually do anything. Great! :-)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> However, it’s still being called by the client code. (It
just does
>>>>>>>> nothing.) Not super important, but it would be nice if at
some
>>>>>>>>point
>>>>>>>> we can
>>>>>>>> figure out if there’s a way to strip out the calls completely.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Oof. I think I’m still waking up. ;-)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I did not realize what I was looking at with the goog.DEBUG.
My
>>>>>>>> recollection is that trace statements are still being used
in the
>>>>>>>> release,
>>>>>>>> but I’ll double check that.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Alex Harui
>>>>>>>>>><aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Well, the goal of using goog.DEBUG in Language.as
trace() was to
>>>>>>>> convince
>>>>>>>>>> GCC to eliminate trace().  I haven't checked whether
it is
>>>>>>>>>>working
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>> Requiring everyone to use goog.DEBUG around trace
statements
>>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> a pain.  Probably better to teach the publisher to
remove it if
>>>>>>>>>> GCC
>>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>>>>> be taught to do it.  We visit almost every line of
the JS output
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> publishers right now.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/17, 11:47 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Alex Harui
>>>>>>>>>>>> <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, though, I think this optimization
isn't urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. That’s why I have not been
bringing this up
>>>>>>>> despite
>>>>>>>>>>> it being on my mind. When the discussion came
up, I couldn’t
>>>>>>>>>>>help
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> join. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> goog.DEBUG is already being used in Language.as.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! I hadn’t noticed. I was missing an
import of of
>>>>>>>>>>> goog.DEBUG
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> COMPILE::JS I’m guessing the imports of goog.bind
and
>>>>>>>>>>>goog.global
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> enough to make goog.DEBUG visible to the compiler
in
>>>>>>>>>>>Language.as.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Once we’re on this topic, there’s something
that I had wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>> bring up
>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time: I think trace statements should
disappear in
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>> JS build. Should we put all the JS trace code
inside an
>>>>>>>>>>> if(goog.DEBUG)
>>>>>>>>>>> block?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>

Mime
View raw message