Pretty sure something like this was done for Flash Builder. You could
direct FB to generate ValueObjects from a WSDL.
I'm imagining an AIR app that lets you specify a path to an output folder
and a class name and lets you paste a JSON result.
If you look at the ASDoc structure for DataGrid.json, it looks like this:
{ "type": "class",
"qname": "org.apache.royale.express.DataGrid",
"baseClassname": "org.apache.royale.html.DataGrid",
"description": "This class extends DataGrid and adds beads for drag and
drop and column reordering.",
"tags": [
{ "tagName": "flexdocurl",
"values":
["https://flex.apache.org/asdoc/spark/components/DataGrid.html"]},
{ "tagName": "flexcomponent",
"values": ["spark.components.DataGrid"]}],
"members": [
{ "type": "method",
"qname": "org.apache.royale.express.DataGrid",
"namespace": "",
"return": "",
"params": []},
{ "type": "method",
"qname": "addedToParent",
"namespace": "public",
"override": true,
"return": "void",
"params": []}]
}
So, I might call this "ClassData". The utility would JSON.parse the
structure and walk each property. If it sees the value is a String then
it sets the property type to String, if a number, then Number or int if
the value doesn't have decimal places. True and false are Booleans.
Array for Arrays.
If the value is an Array, it looks at the first element in the Array. IF
the first element Is an Object, like it is for tags, it would create the
class ClassData_tags and walk the object. Same for any value of a field
that is an Object.
IMO, it doesn't have to be perfect, just save you most of the tedious
work. And if you don't like the generated class names, the IDEs should
support refactoring (now or eventually).
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
On 2/6/18, 9:16 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I’m really not sure how you plan on going about strongly typing
>hierarchical data.
>
>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Gabe Harbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> What kind of utility do you have in mind?
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 7:09 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't bother making VO's by hand for ASDoc. Let's write a utility to
>>> generate it. It will save everyone time. If you want to see
>>> bin/js-release, change the build to not use ADVANCED_OPTIMIZATIONS for
>>>now.
>>>
>>> There are lots of reasons to avoid using plain Object in a Royale app
>>> other than as a hash map. IMO, most C and Java apps don't use generic
>>> untyped dynamic bags of properties. If I add a warning about Object
>>>use,
>>> there will be a directive to suppress it. Objects are prone to error,
>>>and
>>> there is some indication that runtimes work better with type
>>>information.
>>> The JS runtimes wouldn't bother type inferencing otherwise. WASM hints
>>> that it wants types.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 2/6/18, 8:45 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see how it’s possible to avoid Object completely. Even using
>>>>VOs
>>>> require constructing them from Objects when coming from outside
>>>>sources.
>>>>
>>>> Again: I’m not arguing against using VOs when possible/practical. I’m
>>>> just arguing that use of dot notation on Objects shouldn’t blow up
>>>>your
>>>> app.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, I’m creating VOs for the ASDoc app. It’s kind of tedious
>>>>work…
>>>>
>>>> Harbs
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 6:40 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Good catch. I fixed that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you are arguing in favor of ValueObjects. The error was
>>>>>there
>>>>> because commitObj was a plain Object so the compiler couldn't
>>>>>understand
>>>>> more about it. We want to not have any plain objects in a Royale
>>>>>app.
>>>>> They only create potential problems. In fact, maybe it is time for
>>>>>me
>>>>> to
>>>>> figure out how to generate warnings on every use of plain Object.
>>>>> Eventually we will have typedefs for the GitHub value objects and
>>>>>then
>>>>> there wouldn't be an issue like this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for proving my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/6/18, 2:59 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To illustrate that the VO solution is also error prone, I’m pretty
>>>>>>sure
>>>>>> that this page has a mistake:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapach
>>>>>>ero
>>>>>> ya
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>leci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_Staging%2Fl
>>>>>>ast
>>>>>> Su
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fapplicatio
>>>>>>n-t
>>>>>> ut
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>orial%2Fvalue-objects.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C924b22
>>>>>>9e4
>>>>>> 9b
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>b443ddbf708d56d50cd97%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C63
>>>>>>653
>>>>>> 51
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>16172815360&sdata=e9FoFwJfNJfjmFlWF4%2FRIwCNU4R5mhEEQ9GYz70W3Ls%3D&re
>>>>>>ser
>>>>>> ve
>>>>>> d=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac
>>>>>>her
>>>>>> oy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>aleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_Staging%2F
>>>>>>las
>>>>>> tS
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>uccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fapplicati
>>>>>>on-
>>>>>> tu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>torial%2Fvalue-objects.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C924b2
>>>>>>29e
>>>>>> 49
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>bb443ddbf708d56d50cd97%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C6
>>>>>>365
>>>>>> 35
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>116172825365&sdata=3m3kTW910JYWV8MaM4%2F%2B3v82l5EvxIqgRjqAtIC7N%2BU%
>>>>>>3D&
>>>>>> re
>>>>>> served=0>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless I’m missing something, the following line can be renamed:
>>>>>> data.message = commitObj.message;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it should have been:
>>>>>> data.message = commitObj[“message”];
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Gabe Harbs <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Related:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On this page:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapac
>>>>>>>her
>>>>>>> oy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>aleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_Staging%2
>>>>>>>Fla
>>>>>>> st
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>SuccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fapplica
>>>>>>>tio
>>>>>>> n-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>tutorial%2Fdata.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C924b229e49b
>>>>>>>b44
>>>>>>> 3d
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dbf708d56d50cd97%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C636535
>>>>>>>116
>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>2825365&sdata=IgeSJZENyrUXHWMMzG7U5ZIBYdBe5so%2BeO81N%2B1u%2B%2Fc%3D
>>>>>>>&re
>>>>>>> se
>>>>>>> rved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapa
>>>>>>>che
>>>>>>> ro
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>yaleci.westus2.cloudapp.azure.com%3A8080%2Fjob%2FRoyaleDocs_Staging%
>>>>>>>2Fl
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>tSuccessfulBuild%2Fartifact%2F_site%2Fcreate-an-application%2Fapplic
>>>>>>>ati
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-tutorial%2Fdata.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C924b229e49
>>>>>>>bb4
>>>>>>> 43
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ddbf708d56d50cd97%7C71f1da39c0a84d5a8d88a67b23c30bf4%7C0%7C0%7C63653
>>>>>>>511
>>>>>>> 61
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>72825365&sdata=IgeSJZENyrUXHWMMzG7U5ZIBYdBe5so%2BeO81N%2B1u%2B%2Fc%3
>>>>>>>D&r
>>>>>>> es
>>>>>>> erved=0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn’t the following code have trouble with minification?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> repos = configurator.json.repos;
>>>>>>> projectName = configurator.json.projectName;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What’s preventing json.repos and json.projectName from being
>>>>>>>renamed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 11:34 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm missing something. I don't think Royale has any extra
>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>> with JSON objects than other JS Frameworks have. If you want to
>>>>>>>> minify,
>>>>>>>> you have to use brackets and strings. If you don't want to
>>>>>>>>minify,
>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> you don't need to worry about that. Am I wrong about that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JSON has something like a "reviver". Has anyone played with that
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> if it can be used to convert straight to VO's?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/5/18, 1:08 PM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An additional point:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you propose handling json that’s multiple levels deep?
>>>>>>>>>Walk
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> json and construct VOs on each level? That seems to me just as
>>>>>>>>>bad
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> problem. Imagine you just want foo.baz.thingy.uid? You’d need to
>>>>>>>>> create a
>>>>>>>>> VO of foo, baz and thingy or be forced to use
>>>>>>>>> foo[“baz”][“thingy”][“uid”]. Of course the average user is not
>>>>>>>>>going
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> remember to do that until their release build doesn’t work…
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Creating VOs means you can’t simply use JSON.parse(). You’d need
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> parser for each type of json you’re consuming. OK. Maybe not full
>>>>>>>>> parsing, but the constructors for these VOs will get pretty
>>>>>>>>>messy —
>>>>>>>>> especially if the structure is a bit fluid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:36 PM, Gabe Harbs <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In theory, everything you say is true. It might even be good
>>>>>>>>>> practice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I’m telling you that this was a pain point when migrating my
>>>>>>>>>>app.
>>>>>>>>>> Simply declaring types as VOs didn't solve the problem for me.
>>>>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> I’ve found that’s needed to solve the problem was passing the
>>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>>> literal into a VO constructor and declaring the variables using
>>>>>>>>>> bracketed access. I was likely going about it wrong, but it was
>>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>>> to just go with the bracketed literals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again: Suggesting using VOs (if we can figure out easy
>>>>>>>>>>instructions
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> do so) is probably a good idea and better recommended practice,
>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>> people live on the edge using other JS frameworks, and I’d
>>>>>>>>>>rather
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> make it harder than it needs to be if they do want to use
>>>>>>>>>>untyped
>>>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>>>> literals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Alex Harui
>>>>>>>>>>><[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It was great to skip type-checking in Flash at times, but the
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> also strongly typed. Also, JS was not a practical language for
>>>>>>>>>>> Flash.
>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>> is more risky to do skip type-checking in Royale for JS. These
>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>>>>>> with lane warnings are a rough analogy. They only let you be
>>>>>>>>>>>less
>>>>>>>>>>> attentive on nice new painted highways. Flash's runtime
>>>>>>>>>>>wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> make type mismatches so it effectively had lane lines. JS is a
>>>>>>>>>>> road
>>>>>>>>>>> without lane lines. A ValueObject keeps your eyes on the road.
>>>>>>>>>>> An
>>>>>>>>>>> ounce
>>>>>>>>>>> of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, you might be better off writing a bead that you can pass a
>>>>>>>>>>> JSON
>>>>>>>>>>> object and it will generate the AS class for you to copy from
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>> clipboard and paste into a file. Then you could guess at the
>>>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't require compiler changes and would encourage early
>>>>>>>>>>> prevention.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just an idea,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/18, 9:39 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah. That’s what you’ve argued in the past, and in a pure
>>>>>>>>>>>>world
>>>>>>>>>>>> you’d be
>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I’d prefer the option to be practical when dealing
>>>>>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>> data types. Being forced to fiddle with properly typed objects
>>>>>>>>>>>> *always*
>>>>>>>>>>>> is too confining IMO. What I personally ended up doing when
>>>>>>>>>>>> dealing
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs and the like was the make sure to quote everything in my
>>>>>>>>>>>>app
>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>> than declare VOs even though finding all the instances were a
>>>>>>>>>>>> pain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it’s pretty common for folks to use untyped objects
>>>>>>>>>>>> *especially*
>>>>>>>>>>>> when dealing with APIs in classic Flex apps. It seem overly
>>>>>>>>>>>> draconian
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make that a requirement for Royale.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Part of the attraction of ActionScript has been that it’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> *optionally*
>>>>>>>>>>>> typed. Minification in JS makes the optional typing pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueObjects
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just for the compiler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quickly? I’m not sure how.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My $0.02.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Alex Harui
>>>>>>>>>>>>><[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO, your proposal sort of defeats the purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ActionScript
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Royale,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is to provide a type system at compile time. Not only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to address your JSON fields, but you should want to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> type-checked, and that you spelled the field name correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the compiler is going to also allow you to mistype:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> var name = myProps["nme"];
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And there will be no errors. And similarly:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> var myObj:Object = {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nme: "foo",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> age : 30.1415
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will be allowed when it probably shouldn't. And also, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> myObj when you intended to use myOtherObj and nobody will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to debug in JS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't care about SWF support, you can quickly make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueObjects
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just for the compiler. In ASDoc, the ValueObject is never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantiated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like a typedef for the compiler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/18, 8:43 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSON Objects are not destroyed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah. I know, but untyped js literals are pretty much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>useless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Royale apps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propose a way to determine that a data structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is external and what the compiler should generate and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the answer is to create ValueObjects. That is essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedefs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already made a suggestion once:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For untyped Objects, the compiler could convert dot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>notation to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bracket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other half of that would be to convert all object
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>literals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “quoted” literals automatically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if I have a function:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function parseMyJson(json:String):Object{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return JSON.parse(json);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var myProps:Object = parseMyJson(json);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var name:string = myProps.name;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would become:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function parseMyJson(json){
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return JSON.parse(json);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var myProps = parseMyJson(json);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var name = myProps["name"];
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var myObj:Object = {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name: "foo",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> age : 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would become:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> var myObj = {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "name": "foo",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "age" : 30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These two features would have solved almost all minification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run into.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’d love to work on this myself, but I’m still not up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>making
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes to the compiler… :-(
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/18, 2:01 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll try to work on this. It’s pretty slow loading the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>debug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still maintain there should be a compiler setting or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prevent objects produced from JSON being destroyed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSON Objects are not destroyed. The code referencing their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has those names changed. Propose a way to determine that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is external and what the compiler should generate and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMO,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the answer is to create ValueObjects. That is essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedefs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, there is no way to automate typedef generation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, you can turn off minification for the app as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other ideas welcome,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This remains a pain point for developing apps and having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VOs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for every API is a drag.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 10:21 AM, Alex Harui
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/18, 1:10 AM, "Gabe Harbs" <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typo. I meant js-reease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, at some later point in time someone should build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the JSON and get js-release working. Maybe after this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to make the ASDoc useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to add Events to the class detail page and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anchor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lists to the details and maybe a simple search-for-class
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it will be time for a release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alex Harui
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Why is bin-release not working?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean SWF support?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
