> Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that
> extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code
> completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 Object
> and not JSObject.
Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ?
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400
> Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ
> Integration)
> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that
> extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code
> completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 Object
> and not JSObject.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle <
> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would
>>> have
>>>> all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint
>>>> correctly
>>>
>>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though
>>> JSObject doesn't extend Object.
>>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet the
>>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while
>>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the
>>> trick ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-)
>> That is the sticker point here, you see my point?
>>
>> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would
>> matter in IJ.
>>
>> Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it back to
>> Object during cross compile.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> If Adobe adds something to Object in
>>>>> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would bet it wouldn't.
>>>
>>> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic
>>> nature of Object.
>>>
>>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400
>>>> Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ
>>> Integration)
>>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level
>>> class
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to
>>> get
>>>>>>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems
>>> good
>>>>>>to me, what about you ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would
>>> have
>>>> all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint
>>>> correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the
>>> JSObject
>>>> would extend from that.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and
>>>> dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the
>>> code
>>>> for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How
>>> does
>>>>> IJ have a hard coded definition?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I
>>>> would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal
>>> in a
>>>> Flex/ActionScript project
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Is this just for code completion in the
>>>>> editor or is it compile time as well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's code hinting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would think that if they are
>>>>> calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug
>>>>> worth filing against IJ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these
>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If Adobe adds something to Object in
>>>>> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would bet it wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is
>>>> barfing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
