Should hopefully be a small change. How is it going? Did you get the
publisher to work again?
On 5/3/13 10:23 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Thanks for waiting with this commit till after I land the
> 'goog.events' branch :-(
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Carlos Rovira
> <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> fixed in my latest commit, not JS and SWF works ok. Things look better at
>> daylight ;).
>> Only JS side need to improve applicationModel to be getter/setter.
>>
>> I change SimpleBinding fix to try catch as you suggested.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Carlos
>>
>>
>> 2013/5/3 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
>>
>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>
>>> I don't think the change to ViewBase.as was correct. The applicationModel
>>> property should be a getter. It looks like you reverted to a var.
>>>
>>> See if that fixes the SWF situation.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 5/2/13 6:17 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alex,
>>>>
>>>> I shared a branch with some changes "feature/applicationModel_refactor".
>>>>
>>>> applicationModel is the variable that makes createjs sample fail with the
>>>> change in simplebinding. I refactor to the way you show (hopefuly).
>>>>
>>>> In the JS version all is working right. But now SWF compilations fails in
>>>> runtime for both, _again and createjs sample (in different ways).
>>>>
>>>> Could you take a look and see if this refactor is in the way you
>>>> commented?. I'll take a look tomorrow and see why SWFs are failing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2013/5/3 Carlos Rovira <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> now I understand the problem. I was not aware of @expose and what you
>>>>> comment here. Very important information. Tomorrow I'll go back to the
>>>>> sample and see if I can change the sample to get working with that style
>>>>> and remove this fix since I think it's better to force people to make
>>>>> things in the good way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/5/2 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw the changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is a good fix, but you might want to add a comment that the
>>>>>> non-getter approach is likely to fail for non-public variables when
>>>>>> minified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, binding in FlexJS only works for public properties and your
>>> fix
>>>>>> makes it work for public variables. Note that in some cases, the
>>> backing
>>>>>> variable for a public get/set is the same name because in JS the
>>> pattern
>>>>>> looks like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /** @private */
>>>>>> var foo;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /** @expose */
>>>>>> function get_foo()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> return this.foo;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is, what did the AS look like? If it looked like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> private var _foo;
>>>>>> public function get foo()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> return this._foo;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the JS code for your failure case should be changed to look like
>>> the
>>>>>> recommended pattern and then you don't need the [this.sourceID] code
>>> path
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> there will be a get_ function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the AS looked like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> public var foo;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the JS should be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /** @expose */
>>>>>> Someclass.prototype.foo;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If they forget to use @expose then it will likely fail when minified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more minor thing: Do you happen to know if try/catch is more
>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>> than doing a property lookup to see if it is undefined before making a
>>>>>> call?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, thanks for contributing. We can use all the help we can get.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/2/13 2:35 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I commit a solution that fixes the problem, but I don't know if is
>>>>>>> compliant with the motivation you make this change (minified version).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think binding should work even if we don't have a getter/setter
>>> setup,
>>>>>>> but I'm to new to this new framework that maybe this is not what you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> in mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it's up to you to change if you see some problem with this fix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2013/5/2 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/13 3:40 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Alex
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this latest change in SimpleBinding:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - this.source = this.document[this.sourceID];
>>>>>>>>> + this.source = this.document['get_' + this.sourceID]();
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Makes the createjs sample to not generate controls far beyond a
>>>>>>>>> SimpleBinding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I need to change the sample code or it's a bug?
>>>>>>>> Well, using getters is correct. Are you binding to something that
>>>>>> isn't a
>>>>>>>> getter in AS? Maybe the JS version of that property should have
>>> been a
>>>>>>>> get/set pair.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you want, you can also try to make SimpleBinding tolerant and
>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>> things that aren't getters.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alex Harui
>>>>>>>> Flex SDK Team
>>>>>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>>>>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alex Harui
>>>>>> Flex SDK Team
>>>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carlos Rovira
>>>>> Director de Tecnología
>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>>>>> F: +34 912 94 80 80
>>>>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>>>>> http://www.directwriter.es
>>>>> http://www.avant2.es
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex Harui
>>> Flex SDK Team
>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> Director de Tecnología
>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> F: +34 912 94 80 80
>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> http://www.directwriter.es
>> http://www.avant2.es
>
>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
