I think the correct solution is to add node.swc to the
-external-library-path when you need access to global. You need js.swc on
the -external-library-path when you want to access window. You can't use
window in a SWF-only project, for instance.
- Josh
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a mention of window in the NativeJSType enums. Not sure why it’s
> needed there.
>
> global should already be in node.js (I think). I’m pretty sure it’s
> defined in the node typedefs
>
> I don’t really care how it’s achieved, but by default (without doing any
> special imports) global should be recognized. (just like window is)
>
> Right now, typing global into a FlexJS project targeting “JSFlex” or any
> one of the framework projects results in a compiler error. How do we fix
> that?
>
> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 7:17 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, the compiler doesn't special case handling of that code. "window"
> > is defined in missing.js so the js.swc knows there is such an entity. Is
> > there any reason not to add a "global" to node.swc?
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 7/13/17, 12:29 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Right now, if you have code that looks like this, the compiler will
> >> report and error and it will fail:
> >>
> >> global[“foo”];
> >>
> >> I would like for that to be legal code in a COMPILE::JS block and it
> >> should compile to:
> >>
> >> global[“foo”];
> >>
> >> Exactly the same as window:
> >>
> >> If you write:
> >> window[“foo”];
> >>
> >> It’s legal code and will compile to:
> >> window[“foo”];
> >>
> >> That’s it.
> >>
> >>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm still not clear what changes are needed.
> >>>
> >>> Are you trying to access APIs that are global but not defined in JS.SWC
> >>> or
> >>> Node.SWC? Otherwise, the APIs on window/global should be defined in
> >>> those
> >>> SWCs.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what the test case is supposed to look like.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> On 7/13/17, 12:11 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Electron has both window and global. Node has global and no window. I
> >>>> think CEF has window and no global. Browsers have window but not
> >>>> global.
> >>>> Depending on which environment you are writing for, you’re going to
> >>>> need
> >>>> either window or global for accessing global variables.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m more concerned with general global access in Node than my specific
> >>>> use case. If general global access works, then that gives a solution
> >>>> for
> >>>> my specific case as well as an other arbitrary one where you’d use
> >>>> window
> >>>> in the browser.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it’s fine to cross compile global[“foo”] to the exact same
> >>>> global[“foo”] in JS. In other words, the compiler should accept global
> >>>> with bracket notation and pass it through unchanged.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think the only thing the compiler does with "window" is allow you
> to
> >>>>> use
> >>>>> "window" to disambiguate between a "global" API and another API in a
> >>>>> package with the same name.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And then the JS.SWC typedefs specify certain APIs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> AIUI, Electron is another runtime that has a window variable and you
> >>>>> want
> >>>>> to detect the difference between Browser, Node and Electron? Or are
> >>>>> you
> >>>>> willing to just try to check for features instead?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you can show what JS code you'd want to end up with we can look
> >>>>> into
> >>>>> changing the compiler so you can write AS to generate that JS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 7/12/17, 9:03 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What do we currently do with window?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> global in Node is the same as window in the browser. All global
> >>>>>> variables
> >>>>>> are attached to the global object.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> global[“foo”] could compile to global[“foo”], global.foo, or just
> >>>>>> plain
> >>>>>> foo, and it all means the same thing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 13, 2017, at 2:14 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What AS do you want to write and what JS do you want as output?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 7/9/17, 12:53 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Checking for window will work for Node, but it will not work for
> >>>>>>>> Electron.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I tried adding global to Falcon, but I was obviously going about
> it
> >>>>>>>> wrong, because what I tried did not work.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is not really high priority for me right now, so I’m moving
> on
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> something else…
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 6, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID
> >
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I've noticed lots of advice on the internet to use feature
> >>>>>>>>> detection
> >>>>>>>>> instead of browser/runtime detection. Did you rule out doing
> >>>>>>>>> that?
> >>>>>>>>> Browsers may implement new features over time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But otherwise, I see some clever tests that check for "window"
> >>>>>>>>> and a
> >>>>>>>>> few
> >>>>>>>>> other things.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> HTH,
> >>>>>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/5/17, 1:54 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No. I was trying to use process to check whether it’s running in
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> Node
> >>>>>>>>>> runtime (such as Node or Electron). window does not have
> process.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I’m trying to add a class that lets the client know what
> >>>>>>>>>> environment
> >>>>>>>>>> it’s
> >>>>>>>>>> running in.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Adding global sounds like a good idea. Between window and
> >>>>>>>>>> global, I
> >>>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>> that would offer a solution everywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Alex Harui
> >>>>>>>>>>> <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I know it wouldn't work at runtime, but it sounded like
> >>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>>>>>>> couldn't even get the compiler to accept window["process"]
> which
> >>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>> should.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So, it should be ok to write:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> if(typeof window !== "undefined")
> >>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>> theProcess = window["process"];
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>> else
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> theProcess = global.process
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But is there really a process property in the browser?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We could create or own single variable if we want. How often
> do
> >>>>>>>>>>> libraries
> >>>>>>>>>>> need stuff in window/global? Classes that need it should be
> >>>>>>>>>>> able
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>>> inject_html and run some JS that maps window to global or the
> >>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>> way
> >>>>>>>>>>> around.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/17, 6:43 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Node.js doesn't have a window variable, so window["process"]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> won't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> They have a global variable instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I remember reading that there is a proposal for ECMAScript to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> standardize
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> single variable that refers to window in the browser and
> global
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Node.js,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> but that doesn't exist yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What class in Core needs this dependency? I think one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> drawback
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> users of that class will need to add node.swc to their
> project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies. But I don't think every consumer of Core will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> node.swc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But first, why didn't window["process"] work? In theory
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Falcon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> let
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you access anything off of window. We could also add global
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> want.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe we should only allow global and have some bootstrap
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> maps global to window?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/17, 2:09 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I see that the Node typedefs has all the process
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> declarations
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in global.js.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there an issue with adding a dependency in CoreJS to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> node.swc?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should a class that has this dependency go somewhere else?
> (I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don’t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> really see an issue with adding the dependency, but I’m
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> throwing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in case I’m missing something.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 12:00 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see this in missing.js:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @export
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * This gets mapped to org.apache.flex.utils.
> Language.trace()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @param {...} rest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function trace(rest) {}
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @type {!Console}
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @const
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var console;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I can add another one like so:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /**
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @type {!Process}
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * @const
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var process;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, it seems like a drag to have to add a typedef
> every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developer needs to check for the existence of a global that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think of.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:13 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. Here’s what I see:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if(typeof window !== "undefined")
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theConsole = window.console;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else if(typeof console !== "undefined")
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theConsole = console;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you define console in a typedef maybe?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m thinking that Falcon should really allow undefined
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used with “typeof”.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth be told, I really need to do something like one of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if(typeof (process) != 'undefined' &&
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {}.toString.call(process)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '[object process]’)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if(typeof process != 'undefined' && process &&
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.constructor.name == "process”)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course every reference to process causes a compiler
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wonder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if there’s some way to tell the compiler to accept it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complaining…
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Josh Tynjala
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't remember exactly what I did, but in order to get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node.js, I had to figure out how to find the console
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> window
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus global. I feel like I remember using typeof, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Take a look at the implementation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Language.trace()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what I did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2017 5:26 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m trying to figure out how to solve this dilemma:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Browsers attach global variables to window.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Node.js attaches globals to global.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m trying to check for the existence of a global called
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JS,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’d generally do that by checking typeof process ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘undefined’.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Falcon
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not allow you to do that and complains that process
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undefined
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property. In the browser you can use window[“process”]
> ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> undefined
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> node you can (theoretically) use global[“process”] ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undefined.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can’t
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think of a generic way to do this though.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
