Alex, I believe the last PRs I made across falcon and asjs address the various recent issues we discussed.
One additional (strange) thing I observed (partly because I was using a plain text editor at one point, without xml hinting) is that you can get a swf with invalid bytecode (stack overflow or underflow) by having bad xml in the mxml. I had a stray '-->' at one point in the mxml without a matching open comment tag and there was no compiler error. The resulting swf was bad (but the js output still seemed fine). The regular flex 4.x compiler gives an error in this case, so this is something else that needs to be looked at - I can come back to see if I can figure that out it if no-one else does, but I am more keen to work on some reflection stuff next over the coming week (I have something in mind that I think will help make framework development work easier in general). cheers Greg On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks! I was hoping it was something like that. I will add that now and > test. > I did look through the google closure docs for the annotations with the > various outputs, but mostly followed whatever leads were already in the > code and I did not look at the class level stuff I guess. > > (I actually had a lot of head-scratching on release output at one point > when I was working on the earlier stuff with the static bindable var output > - until I found Josh's comment elsewhere in the code about using the > 'deprecated' @expose instead of @export for static accessors) > > > On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9/1/16, 11:40 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Took me a little while to get to this... >> > >> >Actually, I am really confused here. I don't have a real 'fix', but I >> >understand what is causing it after chasing a few wild geese for a while. >> >It seems the remove-circulars setting is the primary cause of this >> problem >> >- removing that setting restores all the goog.requires stuff (which I >> >*thought* I had already supported in the output), and after this js >> >release >> >mode seems fine. Is there any known bug here with remove-circulars? Or do >> >I >> >need to do something extra in the output to make it compatible with >> >remove-circulars ? >> >> I forgot that it may not be as simple as adding goog.require. I just took >> another look and saw that the constructor jsdoc is missing the @extends >> (and/or @implements) directive which I think Google Closure Compiler uses, >> but also the remove-circulars uses it to make sure that goog.requires for >> base classes do not get removed. >> >> Hope that gets things working, >> -Alex >> >> >
