I’m not super-familiar with this, so I’m not super-confident that I checked all
the right things, but I did check what I could.
I do think we should get this out, and start on the next version…
On Oct 26, 2015, at 7:47 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
