Hi Greg,
I thought there were two problems:
A) a compiler warning about binding to something with a localID
B) it didn't work in the js-release version.
The SWF does not rename variables so I would expect it to work whether the
localID is a var or bindable getter/setter due to the default timing/lifecycle.
And I believe it works in js-debug version.
What converting from var to getter/setter does is add @export so that Google
Closure won't rename the localId. So that makes sense, but converting every
localId var to a getter/setter is non-optimal because not all localIds are used
in binding expressions, so it would be great if you could optimize it by
checking to see if the localId was used as the source (not the destination) in
a binding expression. But all of this is code that will solve B, and it occurs
to me that the compiler should still be outputting warnings in A, although we
could defer work on that.
-Alex
On 11/2/18, 11:50 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Alex, sorry if I wasn't clear.
What I meant was this:
1) The compiler has always had a notion of IDs and effectiveIDs. IDs
reflect the "id" property in an MXML Instance. You set id="foo" and the
compiler will create a getter/setter with bindable events named "foo" on
the output class.
I was just matching the above id that for localId in js with the belief
that they should work the same locally without any other changes (in
actionscript/mxml). My changes should only do that for the localId, not all
effectiveIds (if not that was not my intention and I will fix it).
I assumed this is what was happening in swf because I can see the bindings
working in my side-by-side comparison tests, but it could be because of
timing of binding initialization maybe. I will check this.
I had the impression that id and localId were supposed to be functionally
equivalent, with only the HtmlElement setting not happening in js. Maybe
the
I will think about how to optimize things.
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 7:20 AM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I’m not sure what you mean by "match the swf behavior". I don't think the
> SWF output generated bindable getter/setters for every effectiveID, but it
> might already have the smarts to do that for any effectiveID it finds is
> used in a source expression for databinding. In fact, I guess I'm
> surprised that the warning I thought was being generated went away if you
> only changed the JS output. I thought that warning came from a check
> elsewhere in code that dictates both SWF and JS compile errors.
>
> Getters/setters have function call overhead compared to a plain var, so
> any time we can skip using them, we have faster smaller code. So Ideally,
> the compiler would only generate getter/setters for "id" when it
absolutely
> has to. So if you can, it would be best to try to make that change a bit
> smarter. There is a BindingDataBase that might contain useful
information.
>
> I agree that you can assume multiple instances for an MXML file in a SWC,
> but I'm not clear that everyone generates SWCs for their MXML files.
>
> Anyway, if we can agree that we could essentially treat "id" like we are
> currently treating "localId" for an entire file, then we don't need a
> "localId" compile-time property which would make Royale more compatible
> with existing IDEs.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/2/18, 10:58 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex, Thanks for the comprehensive info!
>
> Just a few selective comments:
>
> 'Greg's changes appear to generate bindable getter/setters for all
> localIDs. This will work for now, but IMO, isn't as PAYG as it could
> be.'
>
> Sorry I was not clear in my understanding if this was intentionally
> omitted. I thought that localId was the same as id, but just avoids
the
> HTMLElement id setting. So I expected switching id to localId to
> continue
> to work the same but fix the browser console duplicate id alerts. That
> is
> what I was addressing here. But I think my changes in js match the swf
> behavior now?
>
> I'm not proposing anything added to UIBase, just a different way to
> implement the compile-time feature.
>
> 'One question I have is whether the developer of an MXML Component
> "knows"
> that the component is intended to have multiple instances or not. If
> not,
> the problem gets harder, as the generated output need to be told
> whether to
> set the HTMLElement id or not. If the developer "knows", we could
find
> some way to tell the compiler to generate all "Id" as what we are
> currently
> generating for "localId". '
>
> If the MXML Component is part of a swc, it is safest to assume that it
> is
> possible to have multiple instances I think. But not really known
> (although
> some component types can be assumed to be likely).
>
> 'Thinking about it now, I can't think of why, in a single MXML file,
> you
> would need to sometimes set "id" and other times set "localId". I
> think
> either you want all ids in a file to not set the HTMLElement ids or
> not. '
>
> This seems true also, thinking about it - that's good insight.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:25 AM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Greg's suggestion is valid. And there could certainly be a better
> > solution than "localID". But maybe we need agreement on the problem
> space
> > first.
> >
> > IMO, the problem of multiple IDs is rare. Can we agree on that? My
> guess
> > is that 90% of .MXML files never have more than one instance of them
> on
> > screen at a time.
> >
> > So, if we can agree on that, then we want to apply PAYG to the
> solution.
> > We want folks to be able to create an MXML file for the 90% case,
> use IDs,
> > use CSS and third-party libraries that call getElementById and
> things "just
> > work". Hopefully, we can agree that it is ok for more work to be
> required
> > by the developer and more code to be generated and run to have
> multiple
> > instances of an MXML file on screen.
> >
> > Technically there are two sections of code that factor into this:
> >
> > 1) The compiler has always had a notion of IDs and effectiveIDs.
IDs
> > reflect the "id" property in an MXML Instance. You set id="foo" and
> the
> > compiler will create a getter/setter with bindable events named
> "foo" on
> > the output class. This is super important in Flash since classes
are
> > sealed (not dynamic) and so you must declare slots to hold
> references to
> > instances on the output class. But there are cases where an instance
> is
> > referenced by some other piece of the MXML file but the developer
> did not
> > specify an id. Binding expressions can do that. I think there are
> other
> > scenarios, but I can't think of them right now. In these cases the
> > compiler generates an effectiveID and a simple private var on the
> output
> > class for every effectiveID. In the MXML output, the effectiveID is
> given
> > the property name "_id".
> >
> > 2) The framework code has UIBase with an "id" property setter that
> sets
> > the id on the HTMLElement. In addition, the MXMLDataIntepreter has
> logic
> > that tests if a property being set on an instance is named "id" or
> "_id".
> > If "id", additional logic sets the slot on the document and sets the
> "id"
> > property on the instance to set the HTMLElement's id. If "_id", it
> only
> > sets the slot on the document, but not the instance, since it could
> assume
> > that no other code should care that the instance has its id set (and
> thus,
> > for browser versions, whether the HTMLElement id is set).
> >
> > "localId" is a "compile-time property". It is one of a few
> properties
> > that don't actually exist on the instance's ActionScript
> implementation.
> > Other examples are "includeIn" and "excludeFrom" for states. So,
the
> > localId" doesn't introduce a new problem for IDEs, they all had to
> deal
> > with includeIn/excludeFrom already, but it is true that IDEs still
> need to
> > learn about it.
> >
> > The localID implementation before Greg's changes leveraged the
> effectiveID
> > aspect of all of this code. It did not generate bindable
> getter/setters
> > "just in case" the element with the localID was used in Bindings.
> It did
> > not set the instance's id which would run code to set the
> HTMLElement's
> > id. However, if the element with a localId was used in a binding
> > expression then you would get a warning.
> >
> > Greg's changes appear to generate bindable getter/setters for all
> > localIDs. This will work for now, but IMO, isn't as PAYG as it
> could be.
> > Ideally, the compiler would find out if the localID is used in the
> source
> > expression of a binding expression and only then generate the
> bindable
> > getter/setter. FWIW, another possible fix would be to suppress the
> > warning, but there might be a timing issue around effectveIDs used
in
> > states.
> >
> > IMO, any proposal to add another actual property on every instance
of
> > UIBase "just-in-case" someone is going to use multiple instances of
> an MXML
> > file doesn't seem PAYG to me. This is why we originally chose the
> current
> > implementation. Any proposal that makes the setter for "id" do an
> extra
> > check "just-in-case" the instance is used in multiple instances of
> an MXML
> > file doesn't seem PAYG to me either. We could change the meaning
> of, or
> > name of "localID", but then it is still a compile-time property that
> IDE's
> > have to handle.
> >
> > One question I have is whether the developer of an MXML Component
> "knows"
> > that the component is intended to have multiple instances or not.
> If not,
> > the problem gets harder, as the generated output need to be told
> whether to
> > set the HTMLElement id or not. If the developer "knows", we could
> find
> > some way to tell the compiler to generate all "Id" as what we are
> currently
> > generating for "localId". Thinking about it now, I can't think of
> why, in
> > a single MXML file, you would need to sometimes set "id" and other
> times
> > set "localId". I think either you want all ids in a file to not
> set the
> > HTMLElement ids or not.
> >
> > And if that's true, then we can think of ideas to treat the id
> property in
> > a file instead of a per-MXML-tag way. One way to do that is a
> compiler
> > option, but then you would have to compile that MXML file separately
> (or
> > with other multi-instance MXML files). Another is some sort of
> > "directive", maybe metadata or a special comment. In AS files, we
> already
> > have special metadata and comments for compiler directives.
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong...
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 11/2/18, 10:13 AM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Piotr,
> >
> > Thanks for your interest in this. Just to be clear, I don't want
> to
> > claim
> > that this is 'my idea' - it's more a re-visit of things that
> have been
> > discussed before, and is probably very similar to some options
> that
> > were
> > decided against previously. I just wondered if anyone had
> changed their
> > mind about this. I'm only raising it after some initial use of
> localId
> > and
> > just my using reaction to that experience (possibly heavily
> influenced
> > by
> > the red messages I see in Intellij).
> >
> > At the moment we have
> >
> > <instance id="setDOMid" />
> > <instance localId="doNotSetDOMId" />
> > These seem to work well, but the second one is not nice in my
> IDE,
> > compared
> > to support for the first one.
> >
> > <instance id="regularId" localId="localId" />
> > This probably should be an error for the current implementation,
> as
> > Harbs
> > has pointed out. But at the moment it is possible and 'id' wins.
> >
> > What I am suggesting is that we reconsider to have only one 'id'
> and a
> > second boolean flag to 'switch' it to localOnly or not. This
flag
> > could be
> > 'localId' or 'localIdOnly', whatever seems best - I will use
> > 'localIdOnly' below to differentiate from the above.
> >
> > <Instance id="myLocalOnlyId" localIdOnly="true" />
> > <Instance id="myLegacyId" localIdOnly ="false" />
> > <Instance id="myId" />
> >
> > By default 'localIdOnly' would be false when it is not
> specified, so
> > the
> > same behaviour as it is now - the 3rd case above.
> > But I think it might be helpful to have the option to have a
> global
> > config
> > for this so you could do a global default as a compiler setting
> to
> > set it
> > to true by default - e.g. like 'ignore coercion' is set up iirc.
> This
> > might
> > suit some people who prefer to 'start with things off and switch
> them
> > on
> > only if needed'.
> > localIdOnly in the examples above is a compile time mxml-only
tag
> > setting
> > and is not propagated to the instantiated components, so it is
> not a
> > real
> > value assignment to the instance and does not exist as a
> property on
> > the
> > instances.
> >
> > What this could mean: All IDEs still see the id as 'normal'
> legacy use
> > -
> > for code completion, bindings, script block references etc. The
> new
> > 'unknown' localIdOnly boolean attribute is the only thing that
> IDEs
> > would
> > need to special-case, which I think should be easier than the
> localId
> > string variation (I assume).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 10:01 PM Piotr Zarzycki <
> > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > I'm really happy that you are helping Carlos with that! He may
> move
> > forward
> > > much faster. I just have question to following:
> > >
> > > "-My understanding is that best practice is to avoid multiple
> > identical ids
> > > in the browser, irrespective of whether the browser is
> forgiving of
> > that or
> > > not. If so, it might be good to have at least an option to set
> the
> > default
> > > implementation to support 'best practice' (DOM ids 'off' by
> default,
> > 'on'
> > > explicitly, to avoid 'duplicate ids by accident'). Maybe some
> sort of
> > > import wizard for a legacy flex project could do something
> like this
> > in an
> > > IDE by default though. But it could be a compiler config thing
> too
> > > perhaps."
> > >
> > > Does your idea is saying that if I have some Flex app or even
> write
> > some on
> > > my own setting that option to ON - change the way how things
> are
> > > outputting after compilation ? Do you mean that:
> > >
> > > <Button id="myid" /> - Option is ON
> > >
> > > output will be:
> > >
> > > <Button localId="myid" />
> > >
> > > I'm sorry if I misunderstand you completely :)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > > pt., 2 lis 2018 o 08:31 Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com>
> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > > In collaboration with Carlos, I worked on a compiler fix for
> some
> > issues
> > > > identified with localId in the javascript output. I pushed
> that a
> > short
> > > > while ago. This fixes
> > > > -binding into the localId (in my local test cases) and
> > > > -some occasional issues with referencing the instance from
> within
> > script
> > > > blocks in release (minified) code.
> > > > Or at least, it does so for the cases I have been testing.
If
> > anyone else
> > > > sees remaining issues with this feature that need more
> attention,
> > please
> > > > let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Now on to the 'subject' :
> > > > As part of 'getting familiar' with this I went back to read
> old
> > threads
> > > > about 'id v.s localId'.
> > > > I *think* these [1] [2] were the main ones, but maybe I
> missed
> > some other
> > > > discussions.
> > > >
> > > > After reading these, I wondered if anyone had changed their
> views
> > about
> > > the
> > > > implementation as it is, after having used it for a while.
> > > >
> > > > It may be too late to change things, but here are my quick
> > thoughts about
> > > > this:
> > > > -My understanding is that best practice is to avoid multiple
> > identical
> > > ids
> > > > in the browser, irrespective of whether the browser is
> forgiving
> > of that
> > > or
> > > > not. If so, it might be good to have at least an option to
> set the
> > > default
> > > > implementation to support 'best practice' (DOM ids 'off' by
> > default, 'on'
> > > > explicitly, to avoid 'duplicate ids by accident'). Maybe
> some sort
> > of
> > > > import wizard for a legacy flex project could do something
> like
> > this in
> > > an
> > > > IDE by default though. But it could be a compiler config
> thing too
> > > perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > -I can't think of a scenario where I would want to set both
> id and
> > > localId
> > > > at the same time or what doing so would mean. Either you
> want to
> > set the
> > > > DOM id or you don't, in which case missing id and defined
> localId
> > is more
> > > > like a boolean for not setting DOM id (the implementation is
> not,
> > but to
> > > me
> > > > it seems that it could -maybe should- be). Maybe I am
missing
> > something
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > -'id' is the basis for code completion/intelligence in
legacy
> > IDEs. Using
> > > > 'localId' means this does not work in the legacy IDEs and
> newer
> > IDEs need
> > > > to add custom support for it. Anything that keeps 'id' as
the
> > primary
> > > local
> > > > identifier seems like the best way to get more life out of
> legacy
> > IDEs.
> > > >
> > > > So to me, the simplest option seems to be more along the
> lines of
> > > >
> > > > <Instance id="myLocalOnlyId" localId="true" />
> > > > <Instance id="myLegacyId" localId="false" />
> > > >
> > > > Semantically it is probably better as 'localIdOnly' for the
> boolean
> > > > setting, but 'localId' is shorter (which is perhaps better).
> > > >
> > > > In this case, you get more mileage from older IDEs, and a
> simpler
> > > > implementation for updating IDEs to handle the extra
> mxml-only
> > boolean
> > > > setting. In simple terms everything else works the same so
> the
> > IDEs still
> > > > work for code intelligence.
> > > >
> > > > An unspecified 'localId' boolean in mxml would currently be
> the
> > same as
> > > > false, but could possibly have a global configuration
> default -
> > not sure
> > > > about that, but maybe it could be useful.
> > > >
> > > > If there is an issue with styling on the swf side with valid
> > multiple ids
> > > > vs. html, then I think the swf side could perhaps be
> outlawed in
> > favour
> > > of
> > > > best practice for html. Too much? :)
> > > >
> > > > Anyhow, I am just raising this now in case anyone else has
> changed
> > their
> > > > thinking after using it as-is for a while, and before it
> gets too
> > late to
> > > > consider changing it (if it is not already too late).
> > > > If there is some consensus to change this, I am happy to
> work on
> > it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FFlexJS-MXML-ids-and-classNames-td54361i40.html%23a63276&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb8f2f841b9ec4a9b2c3c08d640f40176%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767814093711636&sdata=rgc7UzAh8%2Fx5DqVIHlhXY8SH2JZvIgN9gcMNwcKgF%2BA%3D&reserved=0
> > > > 2.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com%2FFlexJS-MXML-ids-and-classNames-td54361i60.html%23a63919&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb8f2f841b9ec4a9b2c3c08d640f40176%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767814093711636&sdata=vO0JVOTPUCDywYSb540zFyNqvW6gARWbLE%2B0HJmTDss%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Piotr Zarzycki
> > >
> > > Patreon: *
> >
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb8f2f841b9ec4a9b2c3c08d640f40176%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767814093711636&sdata=5JceKy%2FNWBEKsif6oJD0WPY3Jol9BOO209m8RRgS1SY%3D&reserved=0
> > > <
> >
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.patreon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb8f2f841b9ec4a9b2c3c08d640f40176%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636767814093711636&sdata=5JceKy%2FNWBEKsif6oJD0WPY3Jol9BOO209m8RRgS1SY%3D&reserved=0
> > >*
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
