This is worthy of a discussion. As it stands now, use of constants result in more JS code after compiled. It’s possible that this can be optimized, but currently the most efficient JS code is produced if using string literals rather than constants. (The Google compiler created variables for string literals used more than once.)
My preference would be to try to stick to string literals in Framework code. This has two advantages: 1. There’s no calls to constants in the compiled code so we save bytes. 2. The constant classes are not required, so they are not included in the compiled code unless client code uses them. As long as we’re careful to use the correct strings, this should not be an issue. If the strings are complex and/or subject to change, then they should be declared once and constants should be used. Otherwise, I think the advantages of using string literals outweigh the “correctness” of using constants. Thanks, Harbs > On Jul 11, 2017, at 11:46 AM, piotrz <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just think that we should use const whenever we can, but won't fight for > that if no one think similar. :) If I found such code around my interest my > natural move would be change it :) > > Piotr > > > > ----- > Apache Flex PMC > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/Re-git-commit-flex-asjs-refs-heads-develop-Uploads-are-assumed-to-be-POST-tp63070p63078.html > Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
