I stumble over tons of VF2JS classes and think it would be better to move stuf like that to some sort of attic. What do you think?
Chris ________________________________ Von: Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 17:13:49 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re: AW: [FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order) JSC is meant to be purely an ActionScript to JavaScript transpiler without any frameworks. By default, it doesn't export an HTML file, but it will optionally support custom HTML templates in 0.8.0. It is exposed through the js/bin/asjsc executable, where it loads the frameworks/js-config.xml configuration. js-config.xml references js.swc to give ActionScript access to browser APIs. NODE generates an index.js that bootstraps things for Node.js. It is exposed through the js/bin/asnodec executable, which it loads the frameworks/node-config.xml configuration. In addition to js.swc, node-config.xml references node.swc to give ActionScript access to Node.js APIs. As far as I know, AMD and VF2JS are no longer maintained. I assume AMD tried to output AMD modules instead of goog modules. I remember Alex or someone mentioning that VF2JS had something to do with the original Flex framework, but I don't know the details. - Josh On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > > yesterday I stumbled over this flexjs-dual output type while looking for > the correct settings to buid a pure JS app. Would it be possible for you > guys to give a short summary of what the different output types actually > are? The enum doesn't contain any documentation on this and I guess this > would be really helpful. > > > So far I see these output types: > > AMD > FLEXJS > GOOG > VF2JS > FLEXJS_DUAL > JSC > NODE > > And I guess I only used no value and FLEXJS > > > Chris > > ________________________________ > Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:45:48 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re: AW: > [FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order) > > Fred Thomas did some work in this area about a year ago. In the > flex-oem-compiler module that FB (and maybe other IDEs) use to talk to the > compiler, he added a FLEXJS_DUAL -js-output-type. Not sure how well it > works. > > Thinking about this some more we'd have to have the same configuration > options available to both compilers which might be a bit strange. Or > maybe we can convince the compilers to not complain about unknown config > parameters. > > We'd have to decide on how to reset the library-path for each compile. > The JS compile might use different SWCs than the SWF compile. > > We'd have to select a few conditional compile options that would be > different for each compiler. For example, COMPILE::SWF would be true for > SWF compiling and false for JS compiling and vice versa, and maybe finding > those params on the command-line would have no effect since they would be > dictated by the compiler. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > > On 10/2/16, 1:45 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >That would be ideal! > > > >- Josh > > > >On Oct 1, 2016 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> One more thought on this: now that COMPJSC can more or less build its > >>own > >> output instead of relying on COMPC to package its pile of .js files, it > >> might be worth experimenting with combining Falcon and FalconJX so COMPC > >> can produce a SWC or a SWC with JS files based on some configuration > >> parameter. Then there would only be one compiler that produces SWFs or > >>JS > >> based on some -output-type flag. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> -Alex > >> > >> On 10/1/16, 10:18 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Hi Chris, > >> > > >> >When I read this, I realized I already pushed the changes when I pushed > >> >some other changes yesterday. If the Maven build didn't blow up, it is > >> >probably because it is using its own compile-xx-config.xml files so is > >> >still generating a pile of .js files and packaging them up on the SWF > >> >COMPC run. > >> > > >> >-Alex > >> > > >> >On 10/1/16, 6:10 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> > >>wrote: > >> > > >> >>Hi Alex, > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>so I guess ideally this change should be done on a feature branch, so > >>I > >> >>can sort out the Maven issues and we'll merge that back as soon as > >>all is > >> >>working. I would like to ask you to create a > >>"feature-autobuild/"-branch > >> >>for that. Just give me a short note what branch the stuff is in and > >>I'll > >> >>try to sort out the Maven issues. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>Chris > >> > > >> > >> > >
