That sounds like the proper way to handle this! We should be able to
reference constants in our ActionScript so that we can get compile-time
errors from typos, while the compiler makes sure that generated JavaScript
can be properly minified.
- Josh
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> AIUI, there is a cost in the minified JS to using constants.
>
> However, there is a cost to screwing up the typing of a string literal as
> well.
>
> The best answer for now, IMO, is to not care whether folks use constants
> or string literals. There are much bigger fish to fry. I don't want to
> see sweeping changes of replacing all string literals with constants or
> vice versa. If you've got that kind of time on your hands, learn the
> compiler code and see if you can make the cross-compiler replace all
> constants with string literals. IMO, that's the right answer.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 7/11/17, 5:37 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here’s what is output in the minimized code:
> >
> >function
> >fqa(){}w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.GET','GET');
> w('org.apache.flex
> >.net.HTTPConstants.POST','POST');w('org.apache.flex.net.
> HTTPConstants.PUT'
> >,'PUT');w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.FORM_URL_
> ENCODED',Fm);w('org.
> >apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.DELETE','DELETE'
> );w('org.apache.flex.net.HTT
> >PConstants.OPEN','open');w('org.apache.flex.net.
> HTTPConstants.COMPLETE',Bt
> >);w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.COMMUNICATION_
> ERROR',At);w('org.apa
> >che.flex.net.HTTPConstants.IO_ERROR','ioError');
> >w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.SECURITY_ERROR',
> 'securityError');w('o
> >rg.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.STATUS',Fx);w('
> org.apache.flex.net.HTTPCo
> >nstants.RESPONSE_STATUS','httpResponseStatus');fqa.
> prototype.h={names:[{na
> >me:'HTTPConstants',i:IF,kind:g}]};w(IF,fqa);
> >
> >elsewhere:
> >IF='org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants’,
> >
> >That’s 807 bytes. That’s quite a penalty for avoiding typing “POST”…
> >
> >No idea what wiki you are referring to.
> >
> >Harbs
> >
> >> On Jul 11, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> As it stands now, use of constants result in more JS code after
> >>>compiled.
> >>
> >> Debug yes but not optimised / release.
> >>
> >>> 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.)
> >>
> >> That's not we found in a previous thread on this list, the google
> >>compiler optimises the constants and there is no penalty in using them.
> >>You mind provide examples that show the above is the actually case and
> >>document it on the wiki?
> >>
> >> My vote would be not the duplicate the strings everywhere and use
> >>constants as there is no cost and increased safety.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >
>
>
