Thanks Alex. I was just curious. I am not concerned about the size, just about whether or not it was 'correct'. I would assume that we will increasingly have js-only swcs in any case, because of less interest in swf builds outside of the framework swcs.
I think the ANE format for AIR was another good representation of unified swcs, but iirc it had nested swfs for each implementation as well as a top-level API-like swf (I might be wrong about that, just going from memory). On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:19 AM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > In theory, (and this was true back when Royale/FlexJS first got going), > the APIs were sufficiently identical. Maybe not truly identical, but > enough that you could have one application code base without > COMPILE::SWF/JS conditionals that could run in Flash or in a browser. In > theory, all COMPILE::SWF/JS was buried in the framework SWCs themselves to > make the API surface effectively the same. > > And then, because Flash Builder projects could only specify one set of > SWCs, then FlexJS/Royale had "unified" or multi-platform SWCs. In any SWC, > the SWF code in library.swf did the Flash implementation and js/out did the > browser implementation. And if we ever had another target, it would also > get packed in (cpp/out) > > I would like to think this is still almost completely true. The "write > once, run in Flash or Browser" still works. I've seen JS-only APIs added > that don't have Flash implementations, but for any API that was supposed to > do what Flash could do, hopefully the JS equivalent has a similar enough > API surface that the app using that SWC doesn't need conditional > compilation. > > Could the Maven SWF SWCs be made smaller without the js/out folder? Yeah, > probably. But you might need to keep js/out for the distribution that > tries to mimic a Flash Builder compatible SDK. > > HTH, > -Alex > > On 1/6/22, 2:06 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have swf-swcs and js-swcs. Maven puts them alongside eachother, ant > puts > them in the two separate folders (swf in the original project folder, > js > inside corresponding projectJS folder in the sibling file structure). > > Question: > Why do the swf-swc builds have js out content inside them? I think > that in > quite a few cases the 'swf' representation (which contains the > definitions > loaded by the compiler) of the js in the js build is probably a little > different to the 'swf' representation inside the swf build because > there > can be api differences between js and swf (via COMPILE::SWF and > COMPILE::JS differences etc). So I assume that it is not the general > case > that we would have a unified swc. If so, why does the swf-only swc > build > contain js files? > >
