> Make does the compile without a problem. :) Does it render ?
Frédéric THOMAS ---------------------------------------- > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:54:06 -0400 > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > Ok, Fine 2 people say don't worry about it, so I won't. :) > > BTW Josh, Fred and I have been working with IntelliJ and this compiles in > IJ with the FlexJSNightly compiler using the JS.swc as an external library. > Make does the compile without a problem. :) > > AS > https://gist.github.com/teotigraphix/ff16e5d404398119358b > > JS > https://gist.github.com/teotigraphix/9e8bbc28f8e0a154ace4. > > Mike > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> AS3 has the same issue as JS when root package and custom packages have >> classes with the same name. It's just that JS has more things in the root >> package. I don't think any special solution is needed. >> >> - Josh >> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Michael Schmalle < >> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/15/15, 11:16 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>!!!!! Still having things at the root package level is going to cause >>>>>>problems, I think we need a solution to this, the CustomEvent and >> Event >>>>>>ambiguous warnings shows its probably going to mess things up. >>>>> >>>>>Can you give me an example? If you are using JS.SWC, what other swc >> is >>>>>going to define CustomEvent and Event? Again, the set of SWCs has to >> be >>>>>different for different targets. >>>>> >>>>>Well it happens if you want to use FlexJS and include DOM calls. Even >> if >>>>>you don't want to use SWF, CustomEvent is a DOM event class and at the >>>>>package level, so in IJ, it can't resolve CustomEvent in the class >> code >>>>>without it being qualified org.apache.flex.events.CustomEvent. >>>> >>>> OK, I get it now. We can certainly rename >>>> org.apache.flex.events.CustomEvent. >>>> >>>> For org.apache.flex.events.Event, I suppose we could rename it too. I >>>> have a feeling there would be some issue with doing that, but it >> doesn’t >>>> come to mind right now. Another option is revisit using >>> goog.events.Event >>>> now that we’ve set the minimum on IE9 (instead of IE8). Maybe we can >>>> write a simple DOM non-bubbling Event implementation for objects that >>>> don’t wrap DOM objects. Would having or.apache.flex.events.Event extend >>>> Event or somehow map to Event fix the problem? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> This is not a solution though. I only used Event and CustomEvent as an >>> example because that is what IJ initially complained about in the >>> DataBindingExample. >>> >>> But this would hold true for all package level DOM classes if you had the >>> same name with an import statement in your code. >>> >>> So it seems, we can't escape the fact these DOM classes need to be in a >>> package org.apache.flex.dom or something. >>> >>> This will complicate everything for me, the emitter will need to have a >>> transform function to reduce this stuff. Also, this is why I brought up >> the >>> JavaScript metadata because if you are using a SWC, there is no asdoc. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>>> -Alex >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
