Maybe. Certainly at the time we compile it, we don't know if there will be a subclass.
I hopefully put in a check so that you can't "hide" a public or protected API with a private one, but I think I left it so that a subclass can create a public API with the same name as a private API. I don't know if that was actually allowed in SWF, maybe you can test it out. But if that is allowed, then the "top-level" must have private APIs with unique names. Of course, I could be wrong... -Alex On 11/12/18, 7:27 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: I’m seeing private vars that are not subclassed also with qualified names. It seems to me that top-level private vars have no reason to be qualified.My $0.02, Harbs > On Nov 6, 2018, at 11:03 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would probably work, but why chase the inheritance chain at all? > > Go ahead and add that if you really want to, but I would rather we not use colliding private names in the framework, and only one person spoke up to say they use colliding private names in their code. > > Historically, folks really hated any private APIs in the Flex framework. Really, we should only use them as backing variables of getter/setters and for APIs we aren't sure we want to support going forward. And even the backing variables may get exposed as protected (some already are). Over time, private API implementations should stabilize and then should be supported by making them protected. > > So, do what you want to do, but I'm not sure how many customers there are. And if you do try to do this, make sure you can walk the entire hierarchy across SWCs. I think it should work, but that could be a place where you get stuck. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 11/6/18, 11:30 AM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 'I'm not sure it is worth figuring out how far up the inheritance chain the > other private variable is and assigning numbers ' > > I was just meaning at simple class level - so not doing anything more than > that. The 'depth number' is the same for all private fields > Y extends Object > X extends Y > > in Y all privates are _$P1 suffix > in X all privates are _$P2 suffix > > nothing too sophisticated > > would that work? > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> #1 is a good idea and will help, but the value for that variable is still >> pushed far to the right in the debugger and pushed other code far to the >> right in the source window. >> >> #2 and similar ideas will help. I'm not sure it is worth figuring out how >> far up the inheritance chain the other private variable is and assigning >> numbers. I considered using some sort of hash of the fully qualified >> classname so each prefix/suffix would be, say 8 characters long. >> >> That said, though, in the framework, I think we should not have private >> name collisions. I found some duplicate code that would be caught if we >> turned on errors for these collisions, and would encourage us to use >> overriding which enables other folks to do overrides. >> >> So, if you want to muck around in this code, feel free to switch the order >> in #1, but I think the next piece of work is to turn on errors for >> collisions in the royale-asjs build. >> >> My 2 cents, >> -Alex >> >> On 11/6/18, 10:07 AM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> "IMO, it makes debugging the framework really painful." >> >> I feel your pain. I didn't try switching it off yet, but I wonder if >> it can >> be on by default with a different approach: >> example: >> >> >> this.org_apache_royale_jewel_beads_models_DropDownListModel__selectedIndex >> >> 1. have the 'private' part of the name as a suffix instead of prefix. >> It >> means you can read the important part easier (doesn't help with the >> very >> long lines with multiple references on them, but might be easier in >> general) >> >> 2. maybe the class name approach is not needed? >> the problem domain is more about conflicts in inheritance chain rather >> than >> class naming, is it not? >> so if >> -local private name is __selectedIndex >> -and the current class is 5 levels away from Object base class >> would it not be possible to use t >> this.__selectedIndex_$P5 >> or similar? >> >> if this 2nd part makes sense (still pondering it) then it could >> probably be >> on by default. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:21 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Kenny, >>> >>> I went and made the changes to decorate private variable names. I >> made it >>> an option that's on by default. IMO, it makes debugging the >> framework >>> really painful. I'm probably going to turn the flag off in the >> framework >>> and have a policy that we don't use the same private variable >> names. It >>> shouldn't affect what users do. >>> >>> Also, turning the option off revealed a fair amount of duplicated >> code. >>> Sometimes we copy a file to form the basis of a subclass and then >> don't >>> clean up everything and you don't find out about private methods if >> they >>> have their names decorated. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 10/28/18, 5:22 AM, "Kenny Lerma" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Alex, this is absolutely needed. The same private variables >> names in >>> base >>> class and subclass are quite common. Since this only affects >> debug, >>> there >>> is no harm in the decorator and maintains consistency with flash. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 9:05 PM Alex Harui >> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It appears that in Flash, private variables are actually in a >> custom >>>> namespace. This means you can have private APIs in a base >> class and >>>> private APIs in a subclass with the same name (and aren't >> overrides) >>> and >>>> everything "works". IOW: >>>> >>>> package org.apache.royale.core { >>>> public class BaseClass { >>>> private var foo:String = "foo,"; >>>> public function BaseClass() { >>>> trace(foo); >>>> } >>>> }}} >>>> >>>> package org.apache.royale.core { >>>> public class MyClass { >>>> private var foo:String = "bar!"; >>>> public function MyClass() { >>>> super(); >>>> trace(foo); >>>> } >>>> }}} >>>> >>>> var baz:MyClass = new MyClass(); // outputs foo,bar! >>>> >>>> This is true for private functions and getters/setters as well. >>> However, >>>> this currently does not work in JS, since the transpiled code >> looks >>> like: >>>> >>>> org.apache.royale.core.BaseClass = function() { >> trace(this.foo) } >>>> org.apache.royale.core BaseClass.prototype.foo = "foo,"; >>>> >>>> And >>>> >>>> org.apache.royale.core MyClass = function() { trace(this.foo} } >>>> org.apache.royale.core MyClass.prototype.foo = "bar!"; >>>> >>>> So you will get "bar!bar!"; >>>> >>>> >>>> The MX Charts code uses the same private API names in base >> classes >>> and >>>> subclasses. I don't know why they didn't use protected >> methods and >>>> override them, so I'm going to change the Charts code to use >>> overrides just >>>> to keep making progress. >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if anybody else uses the same private API name >> in base >>>> classes and subclasses. The theoretical fix is to have the >> compiler >>>> generate a decorated name. That's what the compiler already >> does for >>>> mx_internal APIs and other custom namespace APIs, but I think >> it >>> would make >>>> our code fatter and uglier to decorate private API names, so >> I'm >>> tempted to >>>> have the compiler emit an error or warning instead. >>>> >>>> In order to guarantee uniqueness, we'd have to decorate with >> the >>> fully >>>> qualified name of the class. Then the transpiled code would >> look >>> like: >>>> >>>> org.apache.royale.core.BaseClass = function() { >>>> trace(this.org_apache_royale_core_BaseClass_foo) } >>>> org.apache.royale.core >>>> BaseClass.prototype.org_apache_royale_core_BaseClass_foo = >> "foo,"; >>>> >>>> And >>>> >>>> org.apache.royale.core MyClass = function() { >>>> trace(this.org_apache_royale_core_MyClass_foo} } >>>> org.apache.royale.core >>>> MyClass.prototype.org_apache_royale_core_MyClass_foo = "bar!"; >>>> >>>> IMO, that's a painful change to the transpiler, so I want to >> make >>> sure we >>>> really need to do this. I think it won't impact minified >> size, but >>> it will >>>> be noticeable when debugging the JS. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> -Alex >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
