Hello Ralf.
I'm agree with you, having full SWC support in open-source development will be really great since SWC more flexible in comparison with FAR. It contains pre-compiled classes, which allows to inject it into target SWF without spending extra time on its compiling (of course, if we could implement correct classes initialization order as Nicolas noticed). And it contains intrinsic headers which allows to use SWF with IDE and MTASC as a source folders and automatize classes excluding from main application. In addition to, it's Macromedia (Adobe) compatible.
So it will be really great to have open-source executables and ANT tasks to create (compile) SWC and to use SWC in classpath for compiling SWF without some extra efforts.
But we haven't for I while. I know, a lot of people already requested you and Nicolas for SWC support and you decline it in some reasons. So my proposition about FAR looks for me much more easier to implement. I thought it will be easy for you to implement ZIP archives processing to search for appropriate classes. By the way, is it really necessary to unpack FAR to some temporary folder before utilizing it? Java uses JARs and it doesn't unpack it completely. I believe something like could be also easy implemented with MTASC. And of course, if MTASC will unpack FAR before its utilizing, it could also successfully made by ANT. So initially thought about FAR I don't have in mind its complete unpacking to the temporary folder before using.
Also I'd like to get your suggestion about -rb_include_package option idea. Do you think it will be excess feature?
Regards,
Igor
On 1/18/06, Ralf Bokelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, this is a valid approach also, which i'm using quite often.
But if we load the classes anyway, including them right into the final
swf would make deploying a little bit easier.
My first idea regarding SWC was to be able to create SWC from Haxe code,
this way we would be able to use Haxe "under the hood" right now in
normal Flash projects.
Also every now and then my customers get a swc component only, but not
the complete sourcecode.
So for me SWC makes perfect sense. If i just had some time ;)
Cheers,
Ralf.
Jens Halm wrote:
> Hey bokel,
>
> meine Mails werden von der Liste rejected. Anyway, jenes hätte mein
> Beitrag werden sollen: ;)
>
>
>
>>My goal is to be able to use large precompiled binaries.
>>For example, if i use a big library like AnimationPackage, i'm expecting
>>to see some more improvement in speed.
>
>
> With libraries I prefer to load (not include) precompiled SWFs and
> link my application code to intrinsic classes of that library.
> For large applications with multiple modules (SWFs) linking the same
> library this approach seems better to me than to compile the library
> into each individual SWF.
>
>
> Carbonara!
>
> Jens
>
>
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
