Did you follow the thread where we may switch to base.js? It appears the snapshot of code was trying to do that, but was incomplete. How will that affect what you have done?
On 12/5/12 4:39 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > Hi, > > As the subject suggest, I've completely refactored the JS framework > and added the start of a publishing publishing tool set. What does > this mean? > > 1. I've taken the JS framework that was donated by Adobe, taken it > apart and put it back together again in such a way that it now play > nicely with the Google Closure tools (Library, Linter, Compiler and > Builder). This give the framework developers a common ground to work > on and provides for an approximation of most AS language features > (inheritance, interfaces, access control etc.). > > 2. I've used ant to tie together the various available tools (FalconJS > compiler and Google's Closure Builder, mainly) in such a way that when > you run the build script in 'publisher', it'll take an AS project you > point it to and create an HTML/JS release that includes all the > framework JS files as well as the JS files resulting from the cross > compilation of the AS project, all nicely optimised and minified into > ONE JS file. You can already see most of this in action using a > 'dummy' intermediate JS project I've added to SVN. > > Now, the refactoring I did means that the current output of the > FalconJS compiler is no longer compatible with the FlexJS framework. > I'll try to create a set of rules (or a template, or what?) for the > compiler guys to see if they can change the FalconJS output such that > it becomes compatible with my version of the JS framework and tool > set. > > EdB > > > > -- > Ix Multimedia Software > > Jan Luykenstraat 27 > 3521 VB Utrecht > > T. 06-51952295 > I. www.ixsoftware.nl -- Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe Systems, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
