Responses inline.
On 9/18/19, 11:53 AM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote:
Alex, the idea was to make the js output itself support the options,
without any need to manipulate any files at all.
Why would you not want to use goog defines?
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fgoogle%2Fclosure-compiler%2Fwiki%2FAnnotating-JavaScript-for-the-Closure-Compiler%23define-type-description&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C05e47962202a40946eac08d73c697d85%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637044296118065315&sdata=6RqR1nhJBOv9u0nAwGst325wXtHwWuKozGPZncE2FY0%3D&reserved=0
It seems like the easiest way and it leverages the strength of GCC.
if (JSBuild.includeReflection) {
regular reflection data
}
I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about this, but I don't see how a flag
like JSBUild.includeReflection will drop reflection data for framework classes
unless we specify only certain classes as "framework classes" and thus give
only them that flag.
redefining that JSBuild.includeReflection goog define to be false at the
application build stage (which is for illustrative purposes here only, and
would be true by default), eliminates it from all classes (that have had it
included in the js output) in the release build, just like how goog.DEBUG
works now.
Having alternate swcs sounds complicated to me. It's different, but in some
ways conceptually similar to monkey patching I guess (which works also).
But it seems less desirable than being able to get everything you need from
the one swc.
OT: For the public vars stuff, that is not an issue for AMF serialization.
Reflection classes do support the public var renaming and AMF works fine
with the minimized names. I think the general issue with public vars is
that people can use regular dynamic access in actionscript, and that should
work by default rather than be another hurdle. But of course it should also
be able to be switched back to how it is now.
public vars is not OT. It is the subject of this thread. I'm curious as to
how AMF supports the minified names. When an object comes in from the server
with a "name" property, how do you know it is now called "aa"?
The ideas for the granular stuff are interesting, but I think we need to
go with things that are achievable in the near future, unless you
realistically think the code-flow stuff is something you can work on.
I don't think it's for me, but I believe I can do the stuff I already
mentioned. And I don't expect the approaches would be mutually exclusive in
terms of evolving things in the future.
My point is to be careful as to how much time we make folks spend trying to
understand our compiler options when we might want to do more intelligent
things instead. Having metadata or an interface drive the output of public var
is not complex like code-flow analysis and might avoid folks having to learn
some of these options or implement more options. Or we might try inspecting
GCC's string table to know what strings are being used and prevent renaming
based on that table. Code-flow is hard, but GCC is using it and we might be
able to leverage theirs.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
