royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proxy method calls with RemoteObject
Date Mon, 15 Oct 2018 11:00:48 GMT
Hi Alex,

I'm finding a problem with callProperty. I'm using a
CompressedRemoteObjeect that uses two hooks in RemoteObject API

public var convertParametersHandler:Function;

and
public var convertResultHandler:Function;

this makes the call fail with

[Error] TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating
'this.remoteObject.convertParametersHandler')
send (Operation.js:109)
callProperty (AbstractService.js:147:111)
dologin (LoginForm.js:181)
$EH1 (LoginForm.js:226)
(función anónima)
fireListener (events.js:744)
fireListenerOverride (HTMLElementWrapper.js:61)
handleBrowserEvent_ (events.js:870)
(función anónima) (events.js:289)

So I guess the proxy is trying to proxy all even its own member functions
that should not be affected, makes this sense?

thanks


El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 7:15, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:

> I pushed changes to the compiler and framework to try to get callProperty
> to work.  I don't have a test case but give it a try and see what happens.
>
> If you compare the size of the output with and without -js-dynamic-access,
> you can see the theoretical savings of not using that option.  If that
> savings might matter, then it might be worth spending some time on fixing
> up the issues that -js-dynamic-access "works around".  But keep in mind
> that there probably isn't any way to grab all of the theoretical savings.
> What we don’t know yet is where you'll actually end up.  It might even be
> true that -js-dynamic-access is more optimal.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 10/14/18, 3:02 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
>     Hi Alex
>
>     El dom., 14 oct. 2018 a las 23:48, Alex Harui
> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
>     escribió:
>
>     > I got the resources working so I will look into Proxy.callProperty.
>     >
>     >
>     That's cool, I'm closing for today, I can try in some hours if you
> upload
>     some changes. Thanks
>
>
>     > The issue with js-dynamic-access isn't about MX RemoteObject vs Basic
>     > RemoteObject, it is whether, if we fixed places in any of the code
> where
>     > minification breaks things, what the size/performance trade-off
> would be.
>     > Some variable names would be longer, but some other code might be
> more
>     > verbose as public vars are converted into getter/setters and have
> function
>     > call overhead.  I guess we'll find out when we get someone's app to
> the
>     > point where they are ready to get the production version to run.
>     >
>
>     Well, I'll need to have my app in production by the end/start of the
> year,
>     so we'll can check this with mine. For now it seems I need to left this
>     configuration or release version can pass the login (the mx RO call to
> the
>     server)
>
>
>
>     >
>     > -Alex
>     >
>     > On 10/14/18, 2:23 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrovira@apache.org>
> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Hi Alex,
>     >
>     >     El dom., 14 oct. 2018 a las 18:32, Alex Harui
>     > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid>)
>     >     escribió:
>     >
>     >     > Hi Carlos,
>     >     >
>     >     > JS proxy doesn't support callProperty yet.  Feel free to add
> it, or
>     > I will
>     >     > after I finish up ResourceManager.
>     >     >
>     >
>     >     JS proxy is mx.utlis.ObjectProxy or you mean maybe
> AbstractService
>     >     callProperty?
>     >     I could take a look, but no promises since I don't know exactly
> how
>     > that
>     >     works. A little of guidance here could me make get this done.
>     >
>     >
>     >     >
>     >     > I don't doubt that minification breaks lots of things that
>     >     > js-dynamic-access fixes.  Hard to say how much smaller your app
>     > would be if
>     >     > we fixed anough stuff without that option.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     well, including mx:RemoteObject seems to increase significantly
> my
>     > current
>     >     app in release mode "mx" is 1'8mb while "org.apache.royale" is
>     > 1'8mb...but
>     >     is ok for me since I think is a normal payload for the base of a
> normal
>     >     App, and MX RO here does an important role in my case. So happy
> to pay
>     > the
>     >     price ;)
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     > -Alex
>     >     >
>     >     > --
>     >     > Carlos Rovira
>     >     >
>     >
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7aaabdc80b924afdbbec08d63220b6b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636751513415151449&amp;sdata=UXVAkOWPShS5zniAvBY451D1Sle4tO0N9SkuIHMoFpQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>     --
>     Carlos Rovira
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7aaabdc80b924afdbbec08d63220b6b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636751513415161450&amp;sdata=BJw8cmfNcQoehyex3mO%2FGpWnzuTQavl5SaZ33gDyIXQ%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>
>

-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

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