Ok, for now I am just going to build it up abstracting code I bring in from
the FlexJS emitter.
We definitely need a separate emitter, there is to much goog stuff
happening in the FlexJS one, it's coupled to it which I don't like. I am
going to write it in a way like I did the emit headers and footers type
calls, where they are plug in, you your terms "pay as you go".
So I will use the same pattern for now but remove all the comments for GCC
and the FLEX_DEPS stuff.
Mike
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Michael Schmalle <teotigraphix...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Yeah sorry if I sound like a flake right now.
>
> There are things I have in the emitter right now that need to be there for
> some DOM majic and some other meta data additions I want to bring over from
> Randori. Mike had such a good idea with Randori, it's a shame it turned out
> the way it did.
>
> I am going to switch out the back end with the same code and see what it
> does right now.
>
> But this is what I was saying with eventually trying to astract some of
> your code. I know I won't be able to use the emitter the way it is. I need
> to modify things and have a bit more flexibility.
>
> Anyway I will post back when I test it.
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 5/29/15, 2:35 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok,
>> >
>> >I am at a point where I have some time to spend getting this "vanilla"
>> >compiler working.
>> >
>> >Since this stuff really confuses me, it's not my game. :)
>> >
>> >Just base my output for now on the utilities that FlexJS uses?
>> >
>> >goog.provide()
>> >goog.require()
>> >goog.inherits()
>> >
>> >
>> >Object.defineProperties(org_apache_flex_html_CheckBox.prototype, {
>> >});
>> >
>> >
>> >???????
>>
>> Yes. Really, I think you can just use the FlexJS backend. Then once you
>> see how it works maybe it will be more clear where you switch stuff out
>> for other dependency and inheritance patterns.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >I guess for now I am just going to emulate what you are doing Alex.
>> >Package
>> >names and everything, I can't see coming up with something when there are
>> >about 3 people in the conversation.
>> >
>> >I guess this way you and Peter will have something that directly
>> >translates.
>> >
>> >I don't have to use the GCC for anything using this stuff right? Since
>> >it's
>> >all under the hood, I am just thinking it can change down the road and I
>> >just want to move forward.
>>
>> Yes, the GCC plugs in after all the transpiling. See
>> MXMLFlexJSPublisher.java. It serves mostly as a minifier, but it does
>> catch errors in our hand coded JS. But its usefulness for the latter
>> might go down significantly if all of our JS is transpiled from FalconJX.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>
