On 7/6/14 9:54 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> I certainly won't stop someone from trying to implement e4x in JS. I >> think there may already be some attempts. I think a significant number >>of >> folks use dot-path like Mark Kessler reported and so it will still be a >> porting challenge for folks to re-code to using functions. >> >> That's why it isn't on my priority list: if you're going to port your >>e4x >> dot-path expressions, it might just be better to go to JSON instead. > > >Switching from XML to JSON will require a server side change in most >scenarios. That might not be an option for folks especially servers that >they don't have control over. This is true, but one of the philosophies of FlexJS is "would you have had to convert anyway?". At least a couple potential FlexJS customers have already built out JSON backends as they explore which JS migration strategy to take. It appears that, at least for those folks, the notion of using XML in JS is too nasty and it is worth the time to change the backend. For others who really truly can't port the backend, it might be worth the time to convert from XML to Object, similar to the way the SOAPDecoder and XMLDecoders work today. XML has always been much slower and memory intensive in Flash and often folks convert to classes/objects. FlexJS has support for that already, although there is no generic SOAPDecoder or XMLDecoder. But again, anyone is welcome to take on trying to support e4x in JS. -Alex
