Has everyone who is planning to vote completed their examination of the
nightly builds for both Falcon and FlexJS? I really think we need to get
this stuff released.
-Alex
On 10/22/15, 10:30 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks, Alex. I'll give that a try instead.
>
>- Josh
>On Oct 22, 2015 9:01 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> I looked into this. It might be a bug in GCC. The export symbol code
>> overwrites the Example.run when it create Example. IMO, it should check
>> for existence, or export in a different order.
>>
>> FlexJS works because it doesn’t rely on a static entry point. The
>> following works for me:
>>
>> package
>> {
>> public class Example
>> {
>> public function run():void
>> {
>> trace("hello world");
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>> <html>
>> <head>
>> <script src="Example.js"></script>
>> </head>
>> <body>
>> <script>
>> new Example().run();
>> </script>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>>
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 10/22/15, 8:54 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sorry, that should be:
>> >
>> >asjsc source/Example.as
>> >On Oct 22, 2015 5:41 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm able to get -js-compiler-option to work. It's not ideal, but I
>>can
>> >>add
>> >> it to my examples.
>> >>
>> >> I can't get ADVANCED_OPTIMIZATIONS to work with asjsc at all, though.
>> >>Not
>> >> even the simplest example that I can think of. No externs required.
>> >>
>> >> source/Example.as:
>> >>
>> >> package
>> >> {
>> >> public class Example
>> >> {
>> >> public static function run():void
>> >> {
>> >> trace("hello world");
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> index.html:
>> >>
>> >> <!DOCTYPE html>
>> >> <html>
>> >> <body>
>> >> <script src="bin/js-release/Example.js"></script>
>> >> <script>
>> >> Example.run();
>> >> </script>
>> >> </body>
>> >> </html>
>> >>
>> >> Build command line:
>> >> asjsc Example.as
>> >>
>> >> Any idea why?
>> >>
>> >> - Josh
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
>>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10/21/15, 11:27 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >By the way, the SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS argument for the closure
>>compiler
>> >>> >might be an acceptable middle ground for minification. When I tried
>> >>>it, I
>> >>> >was able to load up my CreateJS demo and it actually rendered
>> >>>everything.
>> >>> >However, I noticed that it wasn't responding correctly to touch
>> >>>events,
>> >>> so
>> >>> >that's why I fell back to WHITESPACE_ONLY. At the time, I couldn't
>> >>> >investigate further, but maybe now I can figure out what's going
>>on.
>> >>> >SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS should minify a lot more than WHITESPACE_ONLY,
>> >>>and
>> >>> it
>> >>> >seems to work without externs.
>> >>>
>> >>> FWIW, SIMPLE didn’t seem to make a difference vs WHITESPACE_ONLY on
>>the
>> >>> one example I tried. ADVANCED makes a big difference, dropping the
>> >>> example from 568K to 141K.
>> >>>
>> >>> I’m just pushed the -js-compiler-option changes and set the default
>> >>>back
>> >>> to ADVANCED. Or will it be a problem to have to add this option to
>> >>>your
>> >>> examples?
>> >>>
>> >>> It should just be:
>> >>> -js-compiler-option=“—compilation_level WHITESPACE_ONLY”
>> >>>
>> >>> -Alex
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Since Harbs mentioned Angular being minfied so well, it looks like
>> >>>they
>> >>> >use
>> >>> >closure compiler with SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS for most of their
>>codebase
>> >>> (one
>> >>> >particular file uses ADVANCED_OPTIMIZATIONS, for some reason):
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://github.com/angular/angular.js/blob/d077966ff1ac18262f4615ff1a533
>> >>>db
>> >>> >24d4432a7/lib/grunt/utils.js#L188
>> >>> >
>> >>> >- Josh
>> >>> >
>> >>> >On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On 10/21/15, 10:16 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >The cross-compiler that generates ActionScript from TypeScript
>> >>> >> >definitions?
>> >>> >> >Yeah, I could probably do that. Generating both ActionScript and
>> >>> >>externs
>> >>> >> >files adds some complexity that I'd prefer to hide from
>> >>>ActionScript
>> >>> >> >developers, though. Ideally, most developers wouldn't need to
>>know
>> >>> >>about
>> >>> >> >the externs files.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Actually, I was thinking that you could take the generated .as
>>files
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> run them through FalconJX and package the JS as externs files.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Today, any of the FlexJS SWCs like Core.swc have a build script
>>that
>> >>> >>runs
>> >>> >> a couple of passes to cross-compile the AS to JS, then a final
>>pass
>> >>> that
>> >>> >> compiles the AS into a SWC and packages the generated JS. It
>>looks
>> >>> from
>> >>> >> the code, that if you put the JS in an externs folder inside the
>>SWC
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> folks reference these SWCs on the external-library-path, that the
>> >>>right
>> >>> >> thing should happen.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >I guess I could redesign dts2as to look for FlexJS and ask it to
>> >>> >> >automatically build the final SWC file with both the generated
>> >>> >> >ActionScript
>> >>> >> >and the generated externs files. That would simplify my
>>tutorials
>> >>> >>either
>> >>> >> >way, since developers won't need to run compc manually.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >What's the usual environment variable a developer might add for
>> >>> >>FlexJS? Is
>> >>> >> >it FLEXJS_HOME?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> FlexJS tries to look just like a regular Flex SDK, so folks
>>should
>> >>>be
>> >>> >>able
>> >>> >> to use FLEX_HOME.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> -Alex
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
