I won't have time to set this up for a while. What is the unminified JS for
"u('dialogPolyfill',dialogPolyfill)"?
-Alex
On 5/31/20, 8:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Here’s the minimal test case I came up with for demonstrating the problem.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<js:Application
xmlns:fx="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fns.adobe.com%2Fmxml%2F2009&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cec801390b4cf4c871bf808d805752003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637265347898256902&sdata=oH2k6NU1gkobR7kfjAIz9AdSUU%2FgFWymxx825V8FA%2Fs%3D&reserved=0";
xmlns:js="library://ns.apache.org/royale/basic"
>
<fx:Script>
<![CDATA[
private function dummy():void
{
dialogPolyfill;
}
]]>
</fx:Script>
</js:Application>
Where dialogPolyfill is
package
{
/**
* @externs
*/
COMPILE::JS
public class dialogPolyfill
{
/**
* <inject_script>
* var script = document.createElement("script");
* script.setAttribute("src",
"https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cec801390b4cf4c871bf808d805752003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637265347898256902&sdata=c0hmaL92qAobKVMziFvF2cMBbXDkAbzF2%2BaQwDuls84%3D&reserved=0";);
* document.head.appendChild(script)
* </inject_script>
*/
public function dialogPolyfill(){}
}
}
In release I get a ‘ReferenceError: dialogPolyfill is not defined’
u('dialogPolyfill',dialogPolyfill) of Examples.js, which is run before
start()
So in order to fix this scenario we would need Examples.js to wait for
dialogPolyfill.min.js, not for start() to wait.
From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:09 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Script Loading Order (Continuing Heads-Up thread from Users)
When I mentioned static initializers in my earlier post, it was about the
timing of when some code would first access hljs. Most externs will probably
be first used from code that runs after application.start(). But if someone
did:
public static var HLJSClass:Class = hljs;
Then that would fail before we can run application.start(), except that the
compiler auto-converts static vars to lazy getters.
However, the hljs usage is not wrapped, so there really aren't any static
initializers to use, so it doesn’t matter if they are lazy or not. I haven't
looked at the other uses of inject_script, but if a class wraps the dependency,
then it can implement its own waiting strategy unless the API has to be
synchronous. IOW, if I created a Highlighter class that used hljs internally,
then if the "highlight" API returns a void, the wrapping implementation would
load hljs.js and make the call when it is ready, which is essentially building
in the façade you wrote.
You could implement a map of injected scripts, but after thinking about it
overnight, my first thought is to require that folks publish a var or uid as
follows:
* <inject_script var="hljs_loaded">
* var scriptLoaded = function() { hljs_loaded = true) };
* var script = document.createElement("script");
* script.setAttribute("src",
"https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fhighlight.js%2F9.12.0%2Fhighlight.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cec801390b4cf4c871bf808d805752003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637265347898256902&sdata=Nh9vUvssX%2Bnwqo3RYhecC0DSwG3ohSGfGGN1NH0LF6M%3D&reserved=0";);
* script.addEventListener("load", scriptLoaded);
* document.head.appendChild(script);
* </inject_script>
Then the compiler may not need so much as a map, but can gather a list of
variables to watch for in the setInterval before calling application.start();
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
On 5/20/20, 12:19 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Several questions/comments:
1. When you say static initializers should be lazy, do you mean load
on the first lib api call? If so, wouldn’t that force async calls?
2. Do you have a way of using static initializers for externs files,
which is how hljs was originally used?
3. To generate the script that waits for dynamically loaded scripts
(I guess we don’t mind async css, though I’m not sure) we would need to have a
map of injected scripts. So it looks like we’ll need to parse the
injected_sctipt tag in any case.
Thanks.
From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:52 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Script Loading Order (Continuing Heads-Up thread from
Users)
OK, I looked at the commit for hljs, and the code it replaced. AFAICT,
that is an instantiation phase dependency and not a initialization phase
dependency, so it should not matter if it loads before or after app.js (unless
someone does use it in a non-lazy static initializer, which should be hard to
do in Royale). It should only matter that it is loaded before anybody calls
it. Other than static initializers, which should all be lazy, nobody should
really call hljs until after the application.start() is called in the
index.html.
Here is the index.html for HelloWorld:
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="HelloWorld.min.css">
<script type="text/javascript" src="./HelloWorld.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
new HelloWorld().start();
</script>
</body>
IMO, for applications that use inject_script (modules will use the
_deps file), we should generate code before the start() call that waits for any
dynamic scripts to load. So if HelloWorld needed hljs, the index.html would
look more like:
<head>
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="HelloWorld.min.css">
<script type="text/javascript"
src="https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fhighlight.js%2F9.12.0%2Fhighlight.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cec801390b4cf4c871bf808d805752003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637265347898256902&sdata=Nh9vUvssX%2Bnwqo3RYhecC0DSwG3ohSGfGGN1NH0LF6M%3D&reserved=0";
onload="highlight.min.js.loaded=true;"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="./HelloWorld.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<script type="text/javascript">
var appInterval = setInterval(function() { if
(highlight.min.js.loaded) {
clearInterval(appInterval);
new HelloWorld().start();
}, 200);
</script>
</body>
Closure seems to use a hash of the URL instead of part of the URL to
avoid collisions in case two different scripts are called main.js or something
like that. And there might be some better way than using setInterval, but the
idea is to wait until the JS is loaded before calling start().
HTH,
-Alex
On 5/19/20, 12:18 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
See 99a8c8356573ff16b668f2d39a447355c673fee3
Note that hljs is an externs file so I couldn’t implement static
initializers there.
There’s also a sort of a queue there for calls made before lib is
loaded. I realize this doesn’t scale as a pattern, which is why I proposed to
simplify annotations instead.
It could be of course there’s a simpler solution I’m missing.
From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:03 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Script Loading Order (Continuing Heads-Up thread from
Users)
Yishay,
I didn't think static initializers would require a façade or other
fancy mechanism. What kind of AS code ends up requiring this more complex
solution?
-Alex
On 5/19/20, 10:34 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Sorry for not responding earlier, I missed this post.
I haven’t been able to replicate this in debug mode, so it’s
interesting you’re seeing that.
I agree the façade solution is a bit cumbersome, but it works
and maybe it’s worth having it out there as an example of using static
initializers instead of injected code.
What do you think?
From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 7:34 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Script Loading Order (Continuing Heads-Up thread
from Users)
Hi Yishay,
I'm confused. The problem I reported was this;
ReferenceError: dialogPolyfill is not defined at
/Users/carlosrovira/Dev/Royale/Source/royale-asjs/examples/jewel/TourDeJewel/target/javascript/bin/js-debug/App.js:10:1
And just as I'm copying here I'm seeing that while I'm running
"js-release", notice that the link refers to "js-debug", so I
think there's
some wrong path involved here
I just updated with your latest change about hljs but I don't
think we have
a problems with it. A part from that I don't like the solution
to make a
Facade for a script, since that involves to create 2 classes
instead of
one. The solution should be just make 1 as3 file (instead of
two) and that
have the proper inject reference.
Please can you revert the hljsFacade?
thanks
El lun., 18 may. 2020 a las 17:44, Yishay Weiss
(<yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
escribió:
> Unless I missed something that’s what it’s doing right now
after my fix.
> I’ll try to explain the scenario as I see it (no modules).
>
> Suppose we have an app that compiles to the following html.
>
> <html>
> <head>
> <script
type="text/javascript">
> var script =
> document.createElement("script");
>
script.setAttribute("src",
> "hljs.min.js");
>
> document.head.appendChild(script);
> </script>
> <script type=”text/JavaScript”
> src=”App.js”></script>
> </head>
> <body></body>
> </html>
>
> After the first script element is loaded, the dom will look
like:
>
> <html>
> <head>
> <script
type="text/javascript">
> var script =
> document.createElement("script");
>
script.setAttribute("src",
> "hljs.min.js");
>
> document.head.appendChild(script);
> </script>
> <script type=”text/JavaScript”
> src=”hljs.min.js”></script>
> <script type=”text/JavaScript”
> src=”App.js”></script>
> </head>
> <body></body>
> </html>
>
> However, App.js will still be loaded before hljs.min.js
because it was not
> created dynamically. App.js will fail because it depends on
hljs.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 6:21 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Script Loading Order (Continuing Heads-Up thread
from Users)
>
> I don't think we have to inject these scripts into the main
.js file. The
> compiler knows when it is compiling the main app or a module.
When
> compiling the main app, it should inject the script in the
HEAD of the html
> wrapper. For modules, it can inject the script into a
separate file. The
> ModuleLoader already loads extra files before loading the
module. It can
> load one more file.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong...
> -Alex
>
> On 5/18/20, 7:38 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> From what I’ve read [1] scripts injected dynamically will
always load
> after static script elements. So I don’t think there’s a good
way to ensure
> the proper order in run-time unless we do something like
> 99a8c8356573ff16b668f2d39a447355c673fee3 , but that’s verbose
and working
> with libs should be simple.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> [1]
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.html5rocks.com%2Fen%2Ftutorials%2Fspeed%2Fscript-loading%2F%23disqus_thread&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cec801390b4cf4c871bf808d805752003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637265347898256902&sdata=vjy8naUvGHBq3Yk3P45nJbnh8BmoT337jsFMtUbgYA4%3D&reserved=0
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:03 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
>
>
> Subject: Re: Script Loading Order (Continuing Heads-Up
thread from
> Users)
>
> Every time I look, closure seems to change how it works.
It looks
> like they are using callbacks and UIDs. I assume they can't
use await or
> Promise because of IE support. I haven't looked at the code
you generate,
> but might have to do something similar, IOW, wait for the
callback or known
> value before continuing.
>
> I think that if we create the script during the running
of another
> script that we have to find a way to wait for that created
script.
>
> It might help to know what kind of initialization code
needed the
> definition so early. One alternative is that such code needs
to be
> responsible for waiting.
>
> Most of our Application classes have a wait mechanism.
We could
> leverage that, but that's also pretty late.
>
> It could be that for Applications we generate the script
in the head,
> and for modules we generate a separate script that is
preloaded.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/17/20, 9:03 AM, "Yishay Weiss"
<yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Is the script tag from inject_script going before or
after the
> script tag for the application (should be before, >IMO)?
>
> It’s going before but the network shows it’s loaded
after.
>
> >Make sure the script tag has the same settings as
the script tags
> google closure uses in js-debug. I think they set some
options so the
> scripts load in order.
>
> I see type being specified in the gcl script
elements, while
> inject ones don’t. I suppose it’s worth seeing if that makes
a difference,
> though I couldn’t find evidence for that on the web.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cec801390b4cf4c871bf808d805752003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637265347898256902&sdata=0CBDia%2F8dmS%2BxW6WyKTmg6KsalMdCub2J9HuADqNyKE%3D&reserved=0
