Hi Adam, Thanks for your input. Many of us want to make sure SWF output is viable for several reasons 3 of which quickly come to mind: 1) There is a runtime verifier in the Flash Player. When you run your code in Flash/AIR it is literally running 1000's of tests that the browser doesn't run and won't catch until something way more serious blows up. Flash runtimes are way more likely to catch the error at the point of failure. 2) If you are allowed to deploy a SWF there should be much less cross-browser testing and bug fixing required. 3) The Flash debugger understands types and access protection.
I attended a presentation where a guy was live-coding a demo in some JS framework. He ran the app, typed in something like "10000000000" and hit a button. The demo failed because he got an exception trying to save that value in the database. The problem was that the JS runtime would not autoconvert that String to a int (via parseInt, IIRC) because it was out range, but instead of it being caught at input time, it wasn't caught until it got all the way to the commit to the backend. Even more important for large apps that use modules written by different teams, the Flash Player will check at module load time if your module conforms to the interface expected by the loading application. If one team or the other changes the interface, without Flash you won't know until some other bug happens. Can you live without using Flash to test your app? Yes, of course, but we're just trying to give you as many ways to optimize your developer productivity. We may not put as much emphasis on making the Flash version pixel-for-pixel the same as JS. It isn't perfect now and depending if we see folks interested in #2, we may just limit the effort to getting bounding boxes for the UI widgets to line up well enough to essentially serve as mocks for your test harnesses. Thanks, -Alex On 9/7/17, 3:43 PM, "Adam Malejko" <a...@malejko.com> wrote: >This sounds great! > >In our use cases, we don't have a need for SWF output when doing FlexJS >projects, and we suspect that we are not alone. For those that want JS and >SWF output, what is the appeal or need? > >The existing Apache Flex compiler (with AIR if needed for mobile) works >fine for our current projects. For the new ones and upcoming conversions, >an Apache-only and therefore Adobe-free framework sounds awesome. Also, >yes >to ant, and no to bash scripts for us. > > >On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Olaf Krueger <m...@olafkrueger.net> wrote: > >> >If this sound good to folks.. >> >> This sounds really good, Alex!! >> I think it's an important thing to get rid of some dependencies and to >>ease >> the FlexJS setup. >> >> Thanks, >> Olaf >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fl >>ex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cde37fb9d9fa24bd >>3570808d4f641ff7d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364042107 >>60660905&sdata=%2BvIXdHHekLGyvE%2F9S6gouQaoRGH7fEiZ8dOQ4m8vo4E%3D&reserve >>d=0 >>
