Hi Alex, you're right, maybe this deserves more thinking,...in the actual approach, I think that compiler should copy the same assets folder to target so SWF can access it right?
2018-02-28 18:13 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > We could do that if we get enough complaints, but the nice thing about the > way it currently works is that the output folder is all-inclusive. You > can deploy (after a Maven build) the target/javascript/bin/js-release > folder and your assets will be in there, and the URLs will be > URL("assets/MyAsset.jpg"). In your proposal, the user has to remember to > copy the assets folder as well, and the URLs will look like > URL("../../../../assets/MyAsset.jpg") and the layout on the web server > will have to have the same deep folder structure. > > Are you seeing long build times? We could just choose to not overwrite > existing files. That might save time. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 2/28/18, 8:40 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos Rovira" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi, don't know if I understand right since all the things about the > >compiler are beyond my scope, but what I'm suggesting is to realocate > >resources. But don't know if this sounds crazy or not. In this way we can > >support current outputs (JS and SWF) but prepare for future outputs > >(WEBASM, iOS, Android,...) > > > >so it will end as is: > > > > > >target > > | > > ------ assets (inside this folder all output like css, svg, png,...) > > | > > ------- swf (in this folder the .swf (s) app + modules, but for this all > >should search for resources in "../assets" for all assets not @Embeded in > >swf > > | > > ------- js (in this folder will go html and all js files that again > >should look for resources in "../assets" > > | > > -------- webasm > > | > > -------- iOS > > | > > -------- Android > > | > > -------- whatever other output we want to implement > > > >if not I understand that each output should provide its own assets folder, > >and this will end wasting resources for duplication (n times depending on > >how many outputs we want to get) and wasting time and CPU process.. > > > >does this make sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >2018-02-27 18:11 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > > > >> Hi Jason, > >> > >> Actually, I didn't know that. I'm not a compiler guy. Someone else > >>wrote > >> the key pieces. I could see that way back, a compiler might have > >>written > >> out intermediate information for the next step, like having a separate > >> linker that links the object files. But I don't think I've seen (or > >>maybe > >> I just haven't used) options to output extra information for > >> post-processing after the final output. We could certainly output extra > >> information, but then that information needs to be parsed again to be > >>used > >> by the publisher. > >> > >> If that's the way folks want to go, all we need is a volunteer to make > >>it > >> happen. Currently, the publisher does not need the AST so it might even > >> be possible to write the publisher in ActionScript. But that might make > >> it harder to integrate with Maven. > >> > >> What do others think? > >> -Alex > >> > >> On 2/27/18, 8:54 AM, "Jason Guild" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >Alex: > >> > > >> >As you probably know, compilers in the old days were implemented in a > >> >series of stages as separate processes due to memory size limitations. > >> >The output from the previous stage was fed to the next stage as > >> >compilation proceeded until object files were produced. > >> > > >> >Maybe it makes sense for the compiler to output everything the > >>publisher > >> >needs (final ASTs and/or other metadata, etc) when it exits. > >> >Then a separate publisher process could optionally use that output to > >>do > >> >all the expected publish-type things without being intermingled with > >>the > >> >compiler itself. > >> > > >> >The publisher would probably be simpler to understand on its own and > >> >maybe more people could be involved with it. > >> > > >> >Jason > >> > > >> >On 2/26/2018 8:49 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> >> The only > >> >> downside I've thought of is just that it is weird to have a publisher > >> >> attached to the compiler. I don't think most compilers have a > >> >>publisher. > >> > > >> >-- > >> >Jason Guild > >> >Analyst/Programmer V > >> >State of Alaska - Department of Transportation & Public Facilities > >> >Information Systems and Services Division > >> >820 E. 15th Ave. > >> >Anchorage, Alaska 99501 > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >Carlos Rovira > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 > >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7C3da558b1a44a46dfc41b08d5 > >7ec9fc08%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0% > 7C636554328342487363&s > >data=aduUVLnj5Q8FYqR9KJ6WZeEoLN1GqSVVbalBmhAwZSA%3D&reserved=0 > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
