On Apr 18, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/18/16, 6:24 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Assuming we accept it, what should the package naming be? I think
>> there’s a strong case for leaving it as-is.
>
> IMO, I would rename "flash" to "flex". I'd like our FlexJS code to not
> mention Flash at all, regardless of whether there is some legal/copyright
> issue. It just helps make it clear that this stuff doesn't really use
> Flash, it helps us get out of the expectation that this code will somehow
> perfectly replicate what Flash does, and it helps users migrating to see
> what flash dependencies they have in their code.
>
> IMO, it isn't that hard to replace flash.*.* with flex.*.*, and I've been
> pondering a compile flag that automatically looks for a flex.*.* when it
> sees flash.*.*.
Lizhi siad there’s a problem with changing the package so it can run Starling.
I’m not 100% sure what this means, but my understanding is that changing the
package names would require a lot of code changes to redirect to the Flash
packages in playerglobal.swc.
So, for example:
public class TextField extends InteractiveObject
{
}
would have to become:
COMPILE::AS3{
public class TextField extends flash.text.TextField
{
}
}
COMPILE::JS{
public class TextField extends InteractiveObject
{
…
}
}
I’m not sure if just making all the AS3 classes extend the Flash ones is enough.
>
>>
>> 3. How should it be structured in the source? Should all the code go into
>> a single “Flash” project? Should it be split into multiple projects
>> (possibly one for each of the flash top-level packages)?
>
> I haven't looked at the code, but if it is essentially the implementation
> behind playerglobal.swc, so it would be one SWC project in
> flex-asjs/frameworks/projects.
Is there a performance/code size concern with putting everything in a single
SWC? Am I correct in assuming only the necessary code will be compiled into
JS/SWF?
>
> -Alex
>
