Thanks, Tucker. The use of the Closure compiler introduces several
rules which you have to follow within your JS code:
SIMPLE MODE
"with" is not allowed:
When you use with the Compiler can't distinguish between a local
variable and an object property of the same name, and so it renames
all instances of the name.
Furthermore, the with statement makes your code harder for humans to
read. The with statement changes the normal rules for name resolution,
and can make it difficult even for the programmer who wrote the code
to identify what a name refers to.
String representations of function or parameter names:
The Compiler renames functions and function parameters but does not
change any strings in your code that refer to functions or parameters
by name. You should thus avoid representing function or parameter
names as strings in your code. For example, the Prototype library
function argumentNames() uses Function.toString() to retrieve the
names of a function's parameters. But while argumentNames() might
tempt you to use the names of arguments in your code, Simple mode
compilation breaks this kind of reference.
ADVANCED MODE
External references
In order to rename global variables, functions, and properties
correctly, the Compiler must know about all references to those
globals. You must tell the Compiler about symbols that are defined
outside of the code being compiled. Advanced Compilation and Externs
describes how to declare external symbols.
Using string names to refer to object properties:
The Compiler renames properties in Advanced mode, but it never renames
strings. If you need to refer to a property with a quoted string,
always use a quoted string
In Advanced mode the Compiler collapses object properties to prepare
for name shortening.
var foo = {};
foo.bar = function (a) { alert(a) };
foo.bar("hello");
will become
var foo$bar = function (a) { alert(a) };
foo$bar("hello");
Full list of limitations can be found here:
http://code.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/limitations.html
I guess it would be quite a lot of work to modify the LFC and the JS
generator to conform to the Clojure rules.
- Raju
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:20 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote:
> Presumably you could run OL with the -S option to get the JS 'assembley' and
> then run it through the closure compiler and compare that with the
> 'assembled' js code the OL compiler generates.
>
> On 2011-12-13, at 18:43, Raju Bitter wrote:
>
>> The simple Flex app without Closure optimizations is 5mb in size, the
>> optimized version 2.5 mb. Wow! How much better off would OpenLaszlo be
>> with the Closure optimization...
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Raju Bitter
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Here's a video recording of the presentation:
>>> https://my.adobeconnect.com/_a295153/p7ysfeovw33/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Raju Bitter
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The Spoon project team has posted some information in their blog on
>>>> the Flex Summit demos of FalconJS. Here are some interesting facts:
>>>> http://www.spoon.as/2011/flex-summit-live-updates/
>>>>
>>>> + FalconJS will be donated as open source to Apache
>>>>
>>>> + FalconJS AS3 compilation:
>>>> AS code -> falcon front end / falcon js code gen -> google closure
>>>> compiler -> faster JS Code
>>>> Standards used: HTML, JS, SVG
>>>>
>>>> + “Falcon JS” refers to two experimental utilities:
>>>> – AS-> JS
>>>> – MXML -> HTML/CSS/JS
>>>>
>>>> + "Seeing example apps running. They look really good."
>>>>
>>>> That actually sounds promising. The DHTML code should be much more
>>>> optimized with Google Closure support, assuming that FalconJS supports
>>>> the advanced compilation mode.
>>>>
>>>> There will be some changes regarding tooling
>>>> – Flash Builder
>>>> — will release support for apache flex
>>>> — removing unpopular and expensive to maintain features: Design View,
>>>> DCD, and Catalyst workflows
>>>> – flash catalyst discontinued (with catalyst cs5.5 support for flex 4.5)
>>>> – monocle continues as a priority
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like the latest components are optimized for FalconJS
>>>> already, that means Adobe has done most of the work to have complex
>>>> apps running in JavaScript.
>>
>
