royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kenny Lerma <ke...@kennylerma.com>
Subject Re: Proxy method calls with RemoteObject
Date Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:18:32 GMT
I'll need to get more familiar with the compiler code, but I'll certainly
consider it.  I don't know if Josh Tynjala is already working on the source
maps again, but it's been hit or miss that the source maps chrome.  So,
that needs to be looked into as well.

Kenny

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 9:15 AM Carlos Rovira <carlosrovira@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi Kenny,
>
> thanks for joining the discussion, I just reverse the commits that remove
> source maps on release
> Want do you think about work on that change and submit a PR? I could revise
> it
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
> El vie., 19 oct. 2018 a las 16:12, Kenny Lerma (<kenny@kennylerma.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > Just my 2 cents, but I agree that the  -source-map compiler flag should
> > decide if they are generated or not in release builds.
> >
> > Kenny
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:55 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynjala@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I mentioned to Carlos that he did not need to deploy the source maps in
> > > js-release to production. I did not suggest that this feature should be
> > > removed from the compiler. I agree that source maps for release builds
> > are
> > > useful in cases where you need to debug a release build to find out
> what
> > > Closure compiler messed up. Perhaps they should only be generated if
> the
> > > source-map compiler option is true, though, just like the source maps
> > > generated in js-debug.
> > >
> > > - Josh
> > >
> > > On 2018/10/18 16:50:51, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > I did not realize source maps are gone. Please put them back in.
> There
> > > were useful at times.  I don't understand why they were removed.  Can
> you
> > > summarize the discussion?
> > > >
> > > > If I needed some design work and nobody volunteered to do it, I'm
> > pretty
> > > sure I could pay someone to do it who had no knowledge of Royale.  But
> if
> > > you want a code bug fixed, and I'm not available to do it, you could
> pay
> > > someone to do it, but it will take them much longer to get familiar
> with
> > > Royale.  Also, IMO, design issues are found relatively early.  Code
> bugs
> > > are found just hours before some deadline.  Your best insurance for
> being
> > > able to deliver Royale-based apps to your clients on time is for you or
> > > someone you hire to get really good at fixing bugs in the compiler and
> > > ActionScript code.  It is not a wise business decision to expect me to
> be
> > > available.  I keep getting the feeling that you think Adobe sees Royale
> > as
> > > a product like other Adobe products.  It is not.  Adobe is just
> > generously
> > > donating my work to the ASF.  It does not currently matter to Adobe
> > whether
> > > Royale makes it as a product or not.  I'm trying to make it matter to
> > Adobe
> > > by helping Flex customers migrate off of Flash in the browser.  Because
> > you
> > > are essentially building out a new UI for a client, your work is not
> > > overlapping with my goals as much.
> > > >
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 10/17/18, 4:08 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     HI Alex,
> > > >
> > > >     El jue., 18 oct. 2018 a las 0:26, Alex Harui
> > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > >     escribió:
> > > >
> > > >     > Hi Carlos,
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Well, that is my suggestion for how you can figure this out.
> In
> > > theory,
> > > >     > there should be relatively few differences in js-debug and
> those
> > > few
> > > >     > differences are likely to be the difference in the js-release
> > > version.
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     ok
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     > Also, in theory, the source-maps work and running the
> js-release
> > > in the
> > > >     > debugger should show where in the js-debug the exception is
> > coming
> > > from.
> > > >     >
> > > >     >
> > > >     There's no source-maps on release version, I talked about this
> with
> > > Josh
> > > >     and point me that was not point in having source maps on release
> > > version,
> > > >     so I removed in the compiler, since from that point of view was a
> > > thing
> > > >     left undone when he did source maps. In fact debug is not working
> > ok
> > > and I
> > > >     asked Josh to solve the actual issues.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     > Hopefully your time budget considered that Royale is still beta
> > > quality.
> > > >     > This is, hopefully, a relatively straightforward issue and
> having
> > > more
> > > >     > people understand how to debug production code is a good thing
> > for
> > > the
> > > >     > community.  It can't always be me.
> > > >     >
> > > >
> > > >     Well, you know that sell a development to a final client is not
> as
> > > easy as
> > > >     that. I tried to put in balance if the things needed to get the
> > > project
> > > >     done was in place. I thought at that time that is true, since the
> > > things
> > > >     still to be done are, dependent of my work on Jewel mostly (end
> > > >     DropDownList, create autocomplete bead for ComboBox,...), but
> > things
> > > like
> > > >     this was not considered since at that time this problem wasn't
> > > exists. At
> > > >     the end, if I put on table all things that could be show
> stoppers,
> > > we could
> > > >     end many months / years to start a real project, and I think
> that's
> > > not
> > > >     real too. I consider the help of this community, since that kind
> of
> > > things
> > > >     is what I'm finding as arguments inside my company to not go with
> > > Royale. I
> > > >     think as you that I as many others here, must be self sufficient
> at
> > > many
> > > >     levels. Taking into account that each one nature, make be more
> > > capable in
> > > >     some aspects than in others. For example, I think  I can ask you
> to
> > > make
> > > >     more "designer" things in the website or in themes, since I
> think,
> > > correct
> > > >     me if I'm wrong, is not in your skill set, but you can do
> something
> > > of that
> > > >     kind in certain circumstances. I think this is the same. I can
> try
> > > to do
> > > >     this, and will do, of course, but I think there's a certain
> amount
> > of
> > > >     probabilities that I'm not successful in getting what is going
> > > wrong. Hope
> > > >     I'll be wrong in my research...I'll let you know
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     >
> > > >     > Good luck,
> > > >     > -Alex
> > > >     >
> > > >     > On 10/17/18, 11:19 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     Hi Alex,
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     one thing to take into account, you talk about to compare
> > debug
> > > >     > versions,
> > > >     >     but the problem is that debug versions works right, so I
> > think
> > > you'll
> > > >     >     didn't find nothing related to the real problem there.
> > > >     >     Thanks
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 17:48, Carlos Rovira (<
> > > >     > carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> > > >     >     escribió:
> > > >     >
> > > >     >     > Hi Alex,
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     > do you want to send you a zip file with the js-debug
> > > versions?
> > > >     >     > In order to compare both je-relase versions, my problem
> is
> > > that I
> > > >     > don't
> > > >     >     > know what I must look for, so is difficult to see things.
> > In
> > > the
> > > >     > other
> > > >     >     > hand, I'm spending lots of time in this kind of Debugging
> > > what makes
> > > >     > me
> > > >     >     > unable to work on the real project, and I'm starting to
> be
> > > delayed...
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     > thanks
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     > El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 17:19, Alex Harui
> > > >     > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > >     >     > escribió:
> > > >     >     >
> > > >     >     >> This may be a good opportunity for folks like you to
> > > develop skills
> > > >     > at
> > > >     >     >> debugging things like this.  It won't scale if it is
> > always
> > > up to
> > > >     > me.
> > > >     >     >>  IMO, I would be comparing the un-minified source to see
> > > what is
> > > >     >     >> different.  The release files are hard to read.
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >> -Alex
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >> On 10/17/18, 6:58 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > >     > wrote:
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     Alex,
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     testing with the test change to the same jewel code
> > and
> > > with
> > > >     > actual
> > > >     >     >> repo
> > > >     >     >>     states fails in release mode as expected. So clearly
> > > something
> > > >     > has
> > > >     >     >> changed
> > > >     >     >>     this days that makes MX RO fail in release mode.
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     Using DiffMerge to compare both release .js files
> > shows
> > > a clear
> > > >     > red
> > > >     >     >> zone
> > > >     >     >>     where the significant differences exists.
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     I posted both js files here
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     [1] Day 14 -
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2FtYEj&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc84986c31d5b44358ccc08d6348572b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636754145097109707&sdata=IvvKl0exMeuxQwNfS3YJ7nFNWi091eXtWVwk3bIeUtE%3D&reserved=0
> > > >     >     >>     [2] Day 17 -
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >
> > >
> >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2FAcMa&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc84986c31d5b44358ccc08d6348572b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636754145097109707&sdata=4QeBZiH5iaMxzzvDXE0e7OwSpRVqRsv4qcaCCzxgf88%3D&reserved=0
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     Could you check the files and see if you see
> something
> > > >     > relevant. I
> > > >     >     >> don't
> > > >     >     >>     know how to look for. If you need the js files I can
> > > send you in
> > > >     >     >> email.
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     Hope you find with this info the point of changes
> and
> > > could
> > > >     > find some
> > > >     >     >>     solution so we get release mode working againg
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     thanks
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     Carlos
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 15:34, Carlos Rovira (<
> > > >     >     >> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> > > >     >     >>     escribió:
> > > >     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     > Hi Alex,
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > Going to repos state of Oct, 14th (last commit of
> > > that day, in
> > > >     >     >> compiler
> > > >     >     >>     > and framework, and in my project app repo as
> well),
> > I
> > > can
> > > >     > confirm
> > > >     >     >> all
> > > >     >     >>     > worked on release more and communication with
> server
> > > is ok
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > for our mxroyale MX RO test: I can't get it to
> work
> > in
> > > >     > release mode
> > > >     >     >> either
> > > >     >     >>     > adding:
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > debug false
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > and
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >  -js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > or removing mx:method section that was not working
> > > right at
> > > >     > that
> > > >     >     >> time.
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > Our test continue showing white browser screen and
> > > the error:
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an object
> > > (evaluating
> > > >     >     >> 'a.length')
> > > >     >     >>     > ez (App.js:997:141)
> > > >     >     >>     > Vy (App.js:996:181)
> > > >     >     >>     > qm (App.js:970:266)
> > > >     >     >>     > qr (App.js:968:323)
> > > >     >     >>     > mq (App.js:239:887)
> > > >     >     >>     > R (App.js:166:1223)
> > > >     >     >>     > W (App.js:511:1288)
> > > >     >     >>     > mw (App.js:642:796)
> > > >     >     >>     > Dz (App.js:1044:726)
> > > >     >     >>     > create (App.js:908:164)
> > > >     >     >>     > start (App.js:909:229)
> > > >     >     >>     > Código global (index.html:13)
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > So I suppose mx:Application and other implied MX
> > > things in the
> > > >     >     >> background
> > > >     >     >>     > are still not suited for release compilation.
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > So after this, I changed localy all non MX RO
> > > components to
> > > >     > Jewel,
> > > >     >     >> and I
> > > >     >     >>     > get the test working in release mode
> > > >     >     >>     > Interesting thing here is that it worked without
> > > setting
> > > >     >     >>     > -js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true
> > > >     >     >>     > So that indicates that MX RO seems does not need
> > this
> > > itself.
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > Next thing is go to actual code, change the
> example
> > > with the
> > > >     > same
> > > >     >     >> Jewel
> > > >     >     >>     > code, compile, test and then compare outputs with
> > > DiffMerge
> > > >     > to see
> > > >     >     >>     > differences.
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > I'll write result as I get it
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > Carlos
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     > El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 10:15, Carlos Rovira
> (<
> > > >     >     >> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> > > >     >     >>     > escribió:
> > > >     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >> Hi Alex,
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> the compiler params I reported was not right,
> were
> > > from
> > > >     >     >> asconfig.json,
> > > >     >     >>     >> but since I'm using maven I saw there was not
> setup
> > > >     > anything, so I
> > > >     >     >> setup to
> > > >     >     >>     >> :
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> <additionalCompilerOptions>
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > -source-map=true;-js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true</
> > > >     >     >>     >> additionalCompilerOptions>
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> And seems the output is still the same
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an object
> > > (evaluating
> > > >     >     >> 'a.length')
> > > >     >     >>     >> hz (App.js:998:141)
> > > >     >     >>     >> Yy (App.js:997:181)
> > > >     >     >>     >> rm (App.js:971:266)
> > > >     >     >>     >> tr (App.js:969:323)
> > > >     >     >>     >> pq (App.js:239:887)
> > > >     >     >>     >> R (App.js:166:1223)
> > > >     >     >>     >> W (App.js:511:1288)
> > > >     >     >>     >> pw (App.js:642:796)
> > > >     >     >>     >> Gz (App.js:1045:726)
> > > >     >     >>     >> create (App.js:908:164)
> > > >     >     >>     >> start (App.js:909:229)
> > > >     >     >>     >> Código global (index.html:13)
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> Now, I'll try to go back in time to a previous
> > > commit where
> > > >     > it
> > > >     >     >> works and
> > > >     >     >>     >> compare with this output
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> I'll get back with results
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> Carlos
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >> El mar., 16 oct. 2018 a las 23:44, Alex Harui
> > > >     >     >> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > >     >     >>     >> escribió:
> > > >     >     >>     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>> Ok. Let us know what you find out.  I'm curious
> > why
> > > you are
> > > >     > not
> > > >     >     >> using
> > > >     >     >>     >>> -js-dynamic-access.  I thought that was at
> least a
> > > >     > workaround.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>> -Alex
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>> On 10/16/18, 2:36 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > >     > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > >     >     >> wrote:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     Hi Alex,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     I'm starting with our simple MXRoyale RO
> text
> > > example
> > > >     > and our
> > > >     >     >> Java
> > > >     >     >>     >>> sample.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     I just pushed a commit to easy change
> between
> > > the old
> > > >     > example
> > > >     >     >> and
> > > >     >     >>     >>> the new
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     MX RO test case, and enable RELEASE mode.
> When
> > > doing so
> > > >     > and
> > > >     >     >> running
> > > >     >     >>     >>> it
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     doesn't work. this is the output
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an
> object
> > > >     > (evaluating
> > > >     >     >> 'a.length')
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     hz (App.js:998:141)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     Yy (App.js:997:181)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     rm (App.js:971:266)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     tr (App.js:969:323)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     pq (App.js:239:887)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     R (App.js:166:1223)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     W (App.js:511:1288)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     pw (App.js:642:796)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     Gz (App.js:1045:726)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     create (App.js:908:164)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     start (App.js:909:229)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     Código global (index.html:13)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     The additional compiler options are:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     "additionalOptions": "-remove-circulars
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     -js-output-optimization=skipAsCoercions",
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     I must to close for today, but I think it
> will
> > > be more
> > > >     > easy
> > > >     >     >> to debug
> > > >     >     >>     >>> from
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     this example than from my real world app
> that
> > > has many
> > > >     > other
> > > >     >     >> things
> > > >     >     >>     >>> bundled.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     Thanks
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     El mar., 16 oct. 2018 a las 18:49, Alex
> Harui
> > > >     >     >>     >>> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     escribió:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > Hi Carlos,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > Are you saying you can see that the
> response
> > > from the
> > > >     >     >> server was
> > > >     >     >>     >>> received
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > by XHR in the browser?
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > I can't think of anything that I pushed
> > > yesterday that
> > > >     >     >> would affect
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > response handling.  IMO, the changes I
> made
> > > affected
> > > >     > the
> > > >     >     >> call to
> > > >     >     >>     >>> send(),
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > but not the response handling.  The other
> > > change would
> > > >     >     >> affect what
> > > >     >     >>     >>> MXML
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > elements were created.  I guess you'll
> just
> > > have to
> > > >     > debug
> > > >     >     >> into it.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > If it helps, there is a -skip-transpile
> > > option that is
> > > >     >     >> relatively
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > untested, but causes the compiler to skip
> > > over any
> > > >     >     >> transpilation
> > > >     >     >>     >>> and just
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > run the Google Closure Compiler on the
> > > js-debug
> > > >     > folder.
> > > >     >     >> This
> > > >     >     >>     >>> should allow
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > you to add trace statements (actually
> > > console.out) to
> > > >     > the
> > > >     >     >> .JS
> > > >     >     >>     >>> files in the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > js-debug folder and help you debug.  If
> you
> > > are only
> > > >     >     >> modifying
> > > >     >     >>     >>> framework
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > files and not the application files, you
> > > don't even
> > > >     > need
> > > >     >     >>     >>> -skip-transpile,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > since the framework JS files from the SWC
> > > that are in
> > > >     >     >> js-debug are
> > > >     >     >>     >>> not
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > overwritten if they already exist.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > You could also revert back until you get a
> > > version
> > > >     > that
> > > >     >     >> works, or
> > > >     >     >>     >>> compare
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > the current js-debug against working
> > > js-debug, if you
> > > >     > still
> > > >     >     >> have a
> > > >     >     >>     >>> working
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > copy somewhere.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > -Alex
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > On 10/16/18, 3:57 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > >     >     >> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > >     >     >>     >>> wrote:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     Hi Alex
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     It seems that latest changes makes MX
> RO
> > > not work
> > > >     > in
> > > >     >     >>     >>> js-release mode.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     If you remember I could by-pass this
> > > problem
> > > >     > setting up
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
>  -js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     compiling my Application, but now
> > testing
> > > >     > js-release
> > > >     >     >> it's not
> > > >     >     >>     >>> working
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > at
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     all, since we are in release no traces
> > > are shown
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     calling the operation in the backend
> > just
> > > fails
> > > >     > silenty.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     I only can say that call is done
> since I
> > > can see
> > > >     > traces
> > > >     >     >> on my
> > > >     >     >>     >>> java
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > server,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     and enabling XHR in browser I can see
> > the
> > > request
> > > >     > is
> > > >     >     >> received
> > > >     >     >>     >>> but in
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > Royale
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     nothing happens. I think this in an
> > > important
> > > >     > issue (in
> > > >     >     >> the
> > > >     >     >>     >>> end it
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > will be
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     blocking for me to go to production),
> do
> > > you know
> > > >     > of
> > > >     >     >> something
> > > >     >     >>     >>> done in
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     latest changes that could make this
> fail
> > > now?
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     Thanks
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 21:17,
> > Carlos
> > > Rovira
> > > >     > (<
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     escribió:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     > Hi Alex,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     > with your latest fixes all is
> working
> > > ok :)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     > thanks!
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     > El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 20:12,
> > Alex
> > > Harui
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     > escribió:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> Either syntax should work.  I just
> > > pushed
> > > >     > changes to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > AbstractService that
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> got service.echo() to work.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> -Alex
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> On 10/15/18, 10:51 AM, "Carlos
> > Rovira"
> > > <
> > > >     >     >>     >>> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > wrote:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     Hi Alex,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     one thing I not understand is
> > that
> > > this:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     (service.echo as
> > Operation).send();
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     should be
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     service.echo()
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     I think we're trying to remove
> > > "send()"
> > > >     > and call
> > > >     >     >>     >>> directly
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > "echo()"
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     I can go to your latest commits
> > in
> > > both
> > > >     > compiler
> > > >     >     >> and
> > > >     >     >>     >>> framework
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > and
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> try, but
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     don't understand the purpose,
> > since
> > > >     > calling with
> > > >     >     >> send()
> > > >     >     >>     >>> was
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > what we
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> had,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     right?
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     Or maybe I'm missing something?
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     thanks
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     Carlos
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las
> > 19:15,
> > > Alex
> > > >     > Harui
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     escribió:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > About 10 hours ago, after I
> > cast
> > > the
> > > >     > call to
> > > >     >     >> send in
> > > >     >     >>     >>> the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > example to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> be
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > (service.echo as
> > > Operation).send() , it
> > > >     > worked
> > > >     >     >> for me.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > I see you have made several
> > > changes to
> > > >     > the
> > > >     >     >> example
> > > >     >     >>     >>> since.  Go
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > back
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > where the example was about
> 10
> > > hours
> > > >     > ago, make
> > > >     >     >> that
> > > >     >     >>     >>> one
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > change to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > service.echo.send() and it
> > > should work.
> > > >     > If
> > > >     >     >> other
> > > >     >     >>     >>> things are
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > not
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> working, I
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > will look into them later.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > -Alex
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > On 10/15/18, 10:11 AM,
> "Carlos
> > > Rovira" <
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> wrote:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     Hi Alex,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a
> las
> > > 18:54,
> > > >     > Alex
> > > >     >     >> Harui
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     escribió:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > There may be a couple
> of
> > > things
> > > >     >     >> affecting you.
> > > >     >     >>     >>> One is
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > that
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> in the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > bug you
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > reported, it looks like
> > > only the
> > > >     > first
> > > >     >     >> RO is
> > > >     >     >>     >>> created
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > and the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> others
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > are not.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     I 'm pretty sure the bug
> > > about
> > > >     > mx:method
> > > >     >     >> is not
> > > >     >     >>     >>> present
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > since I
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> test
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > in my
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     real project and in the
> > > example in
> > > >     > our
> > > >     >     >> repo. In
> > > >     >     >>     >>> the first
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > one I
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> don't
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > have
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     any mx:method and in the
> > > second I
> > > >     > comment
> > > >     >     >> to
> > > >     >     >>     >>> test. Maybe
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > we
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> should
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > comment
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     mx:method section in the
> > > example for
> > > >     > now.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > Second, if you notice
> in
> > > the
> > > >     > example,
> > > >     >     >> you'll
> > > >     >     >>     >>> see things
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > like
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > (service.echo
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > as
> Operation).lastResult.
> > > After
> > > >     > adding
> > > >     >     >> support
> > > >     >     >>     >>> for
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> callProperty,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > the calls
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > now have to change to
> be
> > > either
> > > >     >     >> (service.echo as
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> Operation).send() or
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > service.echo().  The
> > > current
> > > >     > syntax in
> > > >     >     >> the repo:
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> service.echo.send()
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > will
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > result in an error
> > because
> > > the
> > > >     > compiler
> > > >     >     >> cannot
> > > >     >     >>     >>> know if
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> echo
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > property on
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > service is also a proxy
> > or
> > > not.
> > > >     > The
> > > >     >     >> compiler
> > > >     >     >>     >>> currently
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> guesses
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > "yes" to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > make it easier for
> folks
> > > who have
> > > >     >     >> existing
> > > >     >     >>     >>> nested
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > ObjectProxy
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> data
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > sets.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > So, Royale developers
> > will
> > > have to
> > > >     > do
> > > >     >     >> more
> > > >     >     >>     >>> "casting"
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > with
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> "as" than
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > in
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > Flash.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     check the example since I
> > > change
> > > >     > already
> > > >     >     >> to the
> > > >     >     >>     >>> new
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > syntax to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> help you
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > try
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     it. There's no "send()"
> > > anymore in
> > > >     > the
> > > >     >     >> example in
> > > >     >     >>     >>> our
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > repo.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > In Flash, the
> difference
> > > between
> > > >     > proxy
> > > >     >     >> access
> > > >     >     >>     >>> and
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > regular
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> property
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > access
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > is handled in the
> > > runtime.  The JS
> > > >     >     >> runtimes do
> > > >     >     >>     >>> not do
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > this.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> The
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > compiler
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > could generate code
> that
> > > tests the
> > > >     > class
> > > >     >     >> at
> > > >     >     >>     >>> runtime,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > but I
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> think
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > that will
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > be too slow.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > Specific to
> RemoteObject,
> > > it might
> > > >     > be
> > > >     >     >> possible
> > > >     >     >>     >>> to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > declare the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> JS
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > RemoteObject to not be
> a
> > > Proxy and
> > > >     > just
> > > >     >     >> Dynamic
> > > >     >     >>     >>> and
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > have the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > constructor
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > and getOperation call
> > > >     >     >> Object.defineProperty,
> > > >     >     >>     >>> but that
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > is not a
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > general case
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     > solution for Proxy.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     Hi Alex, that's for me a
> > bit
> > > far
> > > >     > from my
> > > >     >     >>     >>> knowledge. I'm
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > sure
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> whatever
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > you
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     get would be the best
> > > solution.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     Currently mx:RO is broken
> > > and I'm
> > > >     > working
> > > >     >     >> with
> > > >     >     >>     >>> the repo
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > just
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> before the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     change localy to advance,
> > > hope you
> > > >     > could
> > > >     >     >> take a
> > > >     >     >>     >>> look and
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > see if
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> you
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > can fix
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     the issue.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     If not, probably is
> better
> > to
> > > >     > comment the
> > > >     >     >> changes
> > > >     >     >>     >>> in the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> compiler (and
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     maybe in the framework?)
> to
> > > make it
> > > >     > work
> > > >     >     >> again
> > > >     >     >>     >>> until we
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > know
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> how to
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > fix it.
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     One thing I could test
> > today
> > > (not
> > > >     > related)
> > > >     >     >> in the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > meanwhile is
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> if mx:RO
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     works with small messages
> > > on. The
> > > >     > response
> > > >     >     >> is
> > > >     >     >>     >>> not, I
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > think that
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> is the
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > AMF
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > >  serialization-deserialization. But I
> > > >     > think
> > > >     >     >> this
> > > >     >     >>     >>> is not
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > crucial,
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> just
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     disabling it could be ok
> > for
> > > now for
> > > >     > most
> > > >     >     >> of
> > > >     >     >>     >>> folks out
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     > there
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >> (just
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     > knowing
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     that they need to
> configure
> > > that to
> > > >     > false).
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >     >>     >     Thanks
> > > >     >     >>     >>>     >

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