You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2015/04/10 08:05:13 UTC
[FlexJS] More SWCs
Hi,
As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies the
command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think it
makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs: how
many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some of
the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS, and a
bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
cross-compiling the AS.
The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their own
SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs. Maybe
it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all the
chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What do
folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
-Effects
-Collections
-Binding
-Graphics
-HTTPService
-Charts
-Mobile
-Formatters
-DragDrop
-Google Maps
-Jquery
-CreateJS
And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one for
handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
might be the better route.
-Alex
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 4/10/15, 1:54 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I would hate to see that code just die when you could actually use it
>here.
>It's exactly what you need, parts anyway.
I’ll be glad to try to re-use your code. Maybe you can give more more
information about it. I only took a quick look and saw some tests and
what looked like data structures to support this feature. I didn’t find
the part that would open the SWC and stuff files into it. If you can
point me there it would be helpful. But no hurry, I won’t be on this for
a few days or weeks while I do the big rename.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>.
> I sure hope it doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts
of doing this?
I didn't say it took me 4 months to make the bundles but, if you look at
that code, it's typical Mike code, all documented and a lot of it
unit/functional tested.
I would hate to see that code just die when you could actually use it here.
It's exactly what you need, parts anyway.
But! It's your call and you are probably better off just whipping something
out that suits your needs.
Mike
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Reading this, by that change we would actually get FlexMojos support out
> of the box :-) Great stuff!
>
> I remember the night I had to work through to get the first Flexmojos
> FlexJS build up and runnning prior to the Apache EU last year :-) The main
> problem was that the SWCs weren't at all different from the "default" ones
> and that the structure of the JS stuff was completely different and
> monolithic.
>
> As soon as I have the Mavenizer out the door, That nasty Flexmojos Bug
> fixed and my latest changes to the mavenizer reflected in Flexmojos ... ok
> ... perhaps I'll stick a few hours in FlexUnit and then I'll be glad to
> help get FlexJS on the road :-)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 17:32
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>
> Mike, Fred,
>
> Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than what
> I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
> doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this?
>
> You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I was
> just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it
> created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the
> SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
>
> I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
> actually get around to this.
>
> Thanks again,
> -Alex
>
> On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
> >
> >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files together
> >> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess
> >>most of
> >> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
> >> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I don't
> >> think it is hard to pick up.
> >>
> >> Frédéric THOMAS
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
> >>randori/compiler/bundle
> >>
> >> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> >> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
> >> >
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >
> >> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
> >>assist
> >> you with this.
> >> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled
> >> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> >> >
> >> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
> >> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually
> >>in a
> >> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff
> >>to a
> >> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the
> >>swc
> >> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
> >> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
> >> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more
> >>SWCs.
> >> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring,
> >>my
> >> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so
> >>the
> >> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies
> >> the
> >> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think
> >>it
> >> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> >> >
> >> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs:
> >> how
> >> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some
> >>of
> >> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS,
> >>and a
> >> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> >> > cross-compiling the AS.
> >> >
> >> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
> >> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their
> >> own
> >> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs.
> >>Maybe
> >> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all
> >>the
> >> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> >> >
> >> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What
> >>do
> >> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> >> >
> >> > -Effects
> >> > -Collections
> >> > -Binding
> >> > -Graphics
> >> > -HTTPService
> >> > -Charts
> >> > -Mobile
> >> > -Formatters
> >> > -DragDrop
> >> > -Google Maps
> >> > -Jquery
> >> > -CreateJS
> >> >
> >> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one
> >>for
> >> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
> >> > might be the better route.
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
AW: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Reading this, by that change we would actually get FlexMojos support out of the box :-) Great stuff!
I remember the night I had to work through to get the first Flexmojos FlexJS build up and runnning prior to the Apache EU last year :-) The main problem was that the SWCs weren't at all different from the "default" ones and that the structure of the JS stuff was completely different and monolithic.
As soon as I have the Mavenizer out the door, That nasty Flexmojos Bug fixed and my latest changes to the mavenizer reflected in Flexmojos ... ok ... perhaps I'll stick a few hours in FlexUnit and then I'll be glad to help get FlexJS on the road :-)
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 17:32
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Mike, Fred,
Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than what
I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this?
You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I was
just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it
created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the
SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
actually get around to this.
Thanks again,
-Alex
On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
>
>On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files together
>> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess
>>most of
>> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
>> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I don't
>> think it is hard to pick up.
>>
>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>
>> [1]
>>
>>https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
>>randori/compiler/bundle
>>
>> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
>> >
>> > Hi Alex,
>> >
>> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
>>assist
>> you with this.
>> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled
>> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
>> >
>> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
>> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually
>>in a
>> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff
>>to a
>> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the
>>swc
>> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
>> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
>> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
>> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
>> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more
>>SWCs.
>> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring,
>>my
>> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so
>>the
>> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies
>> the
>> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think
>>it
>> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
>> >
>> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs:
>> how
>> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some
>>of
>> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS,
>>and a
>> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
>> > cross-compiling the AS.
>> >
>> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
>> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their
>> own
>> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs.
>>Maybe
>> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all
>>the
>> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
>> >
>> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What
>>do
>> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
>> >
>> > -Effects
>> > -Collections
>> > -Binding
>> > -Graphics
>> > -HTTPService
>> > -Charts
>> > -Mobile
>> > -Formatters
>> > -DragDrop
>> > -Google Maps
>> > -Jquery
>> > -CreateJS
>> >
>> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one
>>for
>> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
>> >
>> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
>> > might be the better route.
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>>
>>
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Yes it was Mike.
Trying to attach and .rbl (not sure it will be allowed) model.rbl
<http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/file/n46055/model.rbl>
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-More-SWCs-tp46017p46055.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>.
The more I look at that stuff, the more I want to cry. It was solid, Fred
that is for sure.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> To understand better the RBL, you can have a look at the randori sdk [1]
> itself, it is structured as a RBL containing several librairies, this is
> its
> manifest (I hope using Nabble, I will have a better copy / paste this time
> than my outlook web mail) :
>
> <?xml version="1.0" ?>
> <bundle xmlns="http://www.randoriframework.com/bundle/manifest/1">
> <versions>
> <bundle version="1.0"/>
> <randori version="0.3.0" build="1"
> minimumSupportedVersion="0.3.0"/>
> <compiler name="randori" version="0.2.5.2" build="1"/>
> </versions>
> <libraries>
> <library name="randori-framework">
> <js
> path="randori-framework/js/monolithic/randori-guice-framework.js"
> type="monolithic"/>
> <js path="randori-framework/js/monolithic/randori-framework.js"
> type="monolithic"/>
> <bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/builtin.swc" type="swc"/>
> <bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/JQuery.swc" type="swc"/>
> <bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/HTMLCoreLib.swc"
> type="swc"/>
> <bin
> path="randori-framework/bin/swc/randori-guice-framework.swc" type="swc"/>
> <bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/randori-framework.swc"
> type="swc"/>
> </library>
> </libraries>
> </bundle>
>
> - Fred
>
> [1] https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-sdk
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-More-SWCs-tp46017p46053.html
> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
RE: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Alex,
To understand better the RBL, you can have a look at the randori sdk [1]
itself, it is structured as a RBL containing several librairies, this is its
manifest (I hope using Nabble, I will have a better copy / paste this time
than my outlook web mail) :
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<bundle xmlns="http://www.randoriframework.com/bundle/manifest/1">
<versions>
<bundle version="1.0"/>
<randori version="0.3.0" build="1" minimumSupportedVersion="0.3.0"/>
<compiler name="randori" version="0.2.5.2" build="1"/>
</versions>
<libraries>
<library name="randori-framework">
<js
path="randori-framework/js/monolithic/randori-guice-framework.js"
type="monolithic"/>
<js path="randori-framework/js/monolithic/randori-framework.js"
type="monolithic"/>
<bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/builtin.swc" type="swc"/>
<bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/JQuery.swc" type="swc"/>
<bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/HTMLCoreLib.swc"
type="swc"/>
<bin
path="randori-framework/bin/swc/randori-guice-framework.swc" type="swc"/>
<bin path="randori-framework/bin/swc/randori-framework.swc"
type="swc"/>
</library>
</libraries>
</bundle>
- Fred
[1] https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-sdk
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-More-SWCs-tp46017p46053.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Mike,
I just had a look at it, it was a long time I didn't and it reminded me I didn't like the way it was first implemented, don't take me wrong, it is not about your programming skill at all, it is about the fact that - and you didn't know at the start as it was your first IJ plugin like mine - I would have based my implementation on Facet (mostly like does the Jangarro plugin) then, I spent a lot of time based on you first work to plug it with the internal of IJ and improving it for incremental compilation, make it to understand the RBLs, etc..
As you said, all this wasted time and energy, that's pity, so, I will probably start an experiment of a plugin based on Facet, integrate what I can take from Randori / Jangarro and see how much time it would take to get something working, if it's too much, I will give up and anyway, if people here want the RBL, I guess it is a good choice because the compiler and the IJ implementation are already writen.
Frédéric THOMAS
> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 09:11:18 -0400
> Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Don't worry about it. I just have been trying to estimate time as well and
> currently, its to much right now to be helpful with anything.
>
> I just have to stick with Feathers and AIR right now on the GPU.
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
> > another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and say
> > IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
> > time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
> >
> >
> > No, not really interested to spend a lot of time on it, the main technical
> > reason is the current limitations of the compiler but if people think it
> > could be a useful, I can check if the plugin still works with the last
> > version of IJ and what it would cost to update it as it could certainly be
> > used for FlexJS
> >
> >
> > Frédéric THOMAS
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:37:47 -0400
> > > Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >
> > > > Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
> > >
> > > Correct Fred.
> > >
> > > Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
> > > another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and
> > say
> > > IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
> > > time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
> > >
> > > Alex, you know how I said I couldn't really justify doing this little
> > hobby
> > > if I didn't have a project. Well, in the last week I put together this in
> > > Feathers/AIR using UDP communication to talk to Bitiwg;
> > >
> > > http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=259&t=435857
> > >
> > > It seems that is Javascript can send UDP messages, this might actually be
> > > an excuse for me to contribute to this project. Being able to create an
> > > application with FlexJS that would do the same thing as the app I just
> > > made, but the UI mad in HTML. I am using OSC UPD messages, so it's not
> > like
> > > that app has to be native if Javascript could communicate that way.
> > >
> > > I admit, javascript and I are not best friends but I could see that as
> > > being me test project.
> > >
> > > So Fred, where are you at these days?
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alex,
> > > >
> > > > The SWCs format as it is today could be read not only by the compiler
> > but
> > > > amongs the tools, the IDEs, extending the existing structure seems
> > fine but
> > > > introducing a new one could break them, in RBL, we can have the SWC,
> > the
> > > > AS sources, the JS classes, 1 all classes JS and the minified JS too
> > IIRC
> > > > managed by container / categories and the compiler knows how to deal
> > with
> > > > each of them individually and we have also the version of the RBL /
> > > > compiler it can be used with.
> > > >
> > > > Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
> > > >
> > > > Frédéric THOMAS
> > > >
> > > > > From: aharui@adobe.com
> > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > > > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:32:16 +0000
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike, Fred,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than
> > > > what
> > > > > I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
> > > > > doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing
> > this?
> > > > >
> > > > > You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives.
> > I was
> > > > > just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files
> > it
> > > > > created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open
> > the
> > > > > SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
> > > > >
> > > > > I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
> > > > > actually get around to this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files
> > > > together
> > > > > >> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I
> > guess
> > > > > >>most of
> > > > > >> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource
> > Bundle
> > > > > >> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I
> > > > don't
> > > > > >> think it is hard to pick up.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Frédéric THOMAS
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
> > > > > >>randori/compiler/bundle
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > > > > >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > >> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > > > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi Alex,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
> > > > > >>assist
> > > > > >> you with this.
> > > > > >> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I
> > > > stumbled
> > > > > >> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
> > > > > >> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions
> > (eventually
> > > > > >>in a
> > > > > >> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**"
> > stuff
> > > > > >>to a
> > > > > >> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to
> > add
> > > > the
> > > > > >>swc
> > > > > >> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a
> > compiler
> > > > > >> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for
> > all
> > > > > >> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Chris
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ________________________________________
> > > > > >> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > > > > >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> > > > > >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > > >> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating
> > more
> > > > > >>SWCs.
> > > > > >> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this
> > > > refactoring,
> > > > > >>my
> > > > > >> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a
> > SWC so
> > > > > >>the
> > > > > >> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so
> > > > simplifies
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I
> > > > think
> > > > > >>it
> > > > > >> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the
> > > > SWCs:
> > > > > >> how
> > > > > >> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts,
> > some
> > > > > >>of
> > > > > >> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten
> > JS,
> > > > > >>and a
> > > > > >> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated
> > by
> > > > > >> > cross-compiling the AS.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart
> > files
> > > > from
> > > > > >> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into
> > > > their
> > > > > >> own
> > > > > >> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two
> > SWCs.
> > > > > >>Maybe
> > > > > >> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to
> > put
> > > > all
> > > > > >>the
> > > > > >> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones.
> > > > What
> > > > > >>do
> > > > > >> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > -Effects
> > > > > >> > -Collections
> > > > > >> > -Binding
> > > > > >> > -Graphics
> > > > > >> > -HTTPService
> > > > > >> > -Charts
> > > > > >> > -Mobile
> > > > > >> > -Formatters
> > > > > >> > -DragDrop
> > > > > >> > -Google Maps
> > > > > >> > -Jquery
> > > > > >> > -CreateJS
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code,
> > one
> > > > > >>for
> > > > > >> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of
> > > > SWCs
> > > > > >> > might be the better route.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > -Alex
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>.
Don't worry about it. I just have been trying to estimate time as well and
currently, its to much right now to be helpful with anything.
I just have to stick with Feathers and AIR right now on the GPU.
Mike
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
> another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and say
> IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
> time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
>
>
> No, not really interested to spend a lot of time on it, the main technical
> reason is the current limitations of the compiler but if people think it
> could be a useful, I can check if the plugin still works with the last
> version of IJ and what it would cost to update it as it could certainly be
> used for FlexJS
>
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:37:47 -0400
> > Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >
> > > Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
> >
> > Correct Fred.
> >
> > Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
> > another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and
> say
> > IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
> > time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
> >
> > Alex, you know how I said I couldn't really justify doing this little
> hobby
> > if I didn't have a project. Well, in the last week I put together this in
> > Feathers/AIR using UDP communication to talk to Bitiwg;
> >
> > http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=259&t=435857
> >
> > It seems that is Javascript can send UDP messages, this might actually be
> > an excuse for me to contribute to this project. Being able to create an
> > application with FlexJS that would do the same thing as the app I just
> > made, but the UI mad in HTML. I am using OSC UPD messages, so it's not
> like
> > that app has to be native if Javascript could communicate that way.
> >
> > I admit, javascript and I are not best friends but I could see that as
> > being me test project.
> >
> > So Fred, where are you at these days?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > The SWCs format as it is today could be read not only by the compiler
> but
> > > amongs the tools, the IDEs, extending the existing structure seems
> fine but
> > > introducing a new one could break them, in RBL, we can have the SWC,
> the
> > > AS sources, the JS classes, 1 all classes JS and the minified JS too
> IIRC
> > > managed by container / categories and the compiler knows how to deal
> with
> > > each of them individually and we have also the version of the RBL /
> > > compiler it can be used with.
> > >
> > > Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
> > >
> > > Frédéric THOMAS
> > >
> > > > From: aharui@adobe.com
> > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:32:16 +0000
> > > >
> > > > Mike, Fred,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than
> > > what
> > > > I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
> > > > doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing
> this?
> > > >
> > > > You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives.
> I was
> > > > just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files
> it
> > > > created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open
> the
> > > > SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
> > > >
> > > > I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
> > > > actually get around to this.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
> > > > >
> > > > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > > webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files
> > > together
> > > > >> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I
> guess
> > > > >>most of
> > > > >> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource
> Bundle
> > > > >> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I
> > > don't
> > > > >> think it is hard to pick up.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Frédéric THOMAS
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
> > > > >>randori/compiler/bundle
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > > > >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > >> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi Alex,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
> > > > >>assist
> > > > >> you with this.
> > > > >> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I
> > > stumbled
> > > > >> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
> > > > >> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions
> (eventually
> > > > >>in a
> > > > >> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**"
> stuff
> > > > >>to a
> > > > >> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to
> add
> > > the
> > > > >>swc
> > > > >> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a
> compiler
> > > > >> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for
> all
> > > > >> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Chris
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ________________________________________
> > > > >> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > > > >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> > > > >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > > >> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating
> more
> > > > >>SWCs.
> > > > >> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this
> > > refactoring,
> > > > >>my
> > > > >> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a
> SWC so
> > > > >>the
> > > > >> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so
> > > simplifies
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I
> > > think
> > > > >>it
> > > > >> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the
> > > SWCs:
> > > > >> how
> > > > >> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts,
> some
> > > > >>of
> > > > >> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten
> JS,
> > > > >>and a
> > > > >> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated
> by
> > > > >> > cross-compiling the AS.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart
> files
> > > from
> > > > >> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into
> > > their
> > > > >> own
> > > > >> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two
> SWCs.
> > > > >>Maybe
> > > > >> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to
> put
> > > all
> > > > >>the
> > > > >> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones.
> > > What
> > > > >>do
> > > > >> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -Effects
> > > > >> > -Collections
> > > > >> > -Binding
> > > > >> > -Graphics
> > > > >> > -HTTPService
> > > > >> > -Charts
> > > > >> > -Mobile
> > > > >> > -Formatters
> > > > >> > -DragDrop
> > > > >> > -Google Maps
> > > > >> > -Jquery
> > > > >> > -CreateJS
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code,
> one
> > > > >>for
> > > > >> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of
> > > SWCs
> > > > >> > might be the better route.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -Alex
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
RE: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
> Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and say
IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
No, not really interested to spend a lot of time on it, the main technical reason is the current limitations of the compiler but if people think it could be a useful, I can check if the plugin still works with the last version of IJ and what it would cost to update it as it could certainly be used for FlexJS
Frédéric THOMAS
> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:37:47 -0400
> Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> > Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
>
> Correct Fred.
>
> Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
> another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and say
> IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
> time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
>
> Alex, you know how I said I couldn't really justify doing this little hobby
> if I didn't have a project. Well, in the last week I put together this in
> Feathers/AIR using UDP communication to talk to Bitiwg;
>
> http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=259&t=435857
>
> It seems that is Javascript can send UDP messages, this might actually be
> an excuse for me to contribute to this project. Being able to create an
> application with FlexJS that would do the same thing as the app I just
> made, but the UI mad in HTML. I am using OSC UPD messages, so it's not like
> that app has to be native if Javascript could communicate that way.
>
> I admit, javascript and I are not best friends but I could see that as
> being me test project.
>
> So Fred, where are you at these days?
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > The SWCs format as it is today could be read not only by the compiler but
> > amongs the tools, the IDEs, extending the existing structure seems fine but
> > introducing a new one could break them, in RBL, we can have the SWC, the
> > AS sources, the JS classes, 1 all classes JS and the minified JS too IIRC
> > managed by container / categories and the compiler knows how to deal with
> > each of them individually and we have also the version of the RBL /
> > compiler it can be used with.
> >
> > Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
> >
> > Frédéric THOMAS
> >
> > > From: aharui@adobe.com
> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:32:16 +0000
> > >
> > > Mike, Fred,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than
> > what
> > > I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
> > > doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this?
> > >
> > > You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I was
> > > just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it
> > > created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the
> > > SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
> > >
> > > I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
> > > actually get around to this.
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> > webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Alex,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files
> > together
> > > >> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess
> > > >>most of
> > > >> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
> > > >> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I
> > don't
> > > >> think it is hard to pick up.
> > > >>
> > > >> Frédéric THOMAS
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
> > > >>randori/compiler/bundle
> > > >>
> > > >> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > > >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > >> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi Alex,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
> > > >>assist
> > > >> you with this.
> > > >> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I
> > stumbled
> > > >> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
> > > >> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually
> > > >>in a
> > > >> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff
> > > >>to a
> > > >> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add
> > the
> > > >>swc
> > > >> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
> > > >> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
> > > >> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Chris
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ________________________________________
> > > >> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > > >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> > > >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > > >> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more
> > > >>SWCs.
> > > >> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this
> > refactoring,
> > > >>my
> > > >> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so
> > > >>the
> > > >> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so
> > simplifies
> > > >> the
> > > >> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I
> > think
> > > >>it
> > > >> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the
> > SWCs:
> > > >> how
> > > >> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some
> > > >>of
> > > >> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS,
> > > >>and a
> > > >> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> > > >> > cross-compiling the AS.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files
> > from
> > > >> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into
> > their
> > > >> own
> > > >> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs.
> > > >>Maybe
> > > >> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put
> > all
> > > >>the
> > > >> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones.
> > What
> > > >>do
> > > >> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Effects
> > > >> > -Collections
> > > >> > -Binding
> > > >> > -Graphics
> > > >> > -HTTPService
> > > >> > -Charts
> > > >> > -Mobile
> > > >> > -Formatters
> > > >> > -DragDrop
> > > >> > -Google Maps
> > > >> > -Jquery
> > > >> > -CreateJS
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one
> > > >>for
> > > >> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of
> > SWCs
> > > >> > might be the better route.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Alex
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> >
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the typos, :)
It's Bitwig, UDP and OSC messages. I need to figure out if javascript can
do the same thing with the browser/mobile as I have done in AIR.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Michael Schmalle <
teotigraphixllc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
>
> Correct Fred.
>
> Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
> another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and say
> IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
> time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
>
> Alex, you know how I said I couldn't really justify doing this little
> hobby if I didn't have a project. Well, in the last week I put together
> this in Feathers/AIR using UDP communication to talk to Bitiwg;
>
> http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=259&t=435857
>
> It seems that is Javascript can send UDP messages, this might actually be
> an excuse for me to contribute to this project. Being able to create an
> application with FlexJS that would do the same thing as the app I just
> made, but the UI mad in HTML. I am using OSC UPD messages, so it's not like
> that app has to be native if Javascript could communicate that way.
>
> I admit, javascript and I are not best friends but I could see that as
> being me test project.
>
> So Fred, where are you at these days?
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Alex,
>>
>> The SWCs format as it is today could be read not only by the compiler but
>> amongs the tools, the IDEs, extending the existing structure seems fine but
>> introducing a new one could break them, in RBL, we can have the SWC, the
>> AS sources, the JS classes, 1 all classes JS and the minified JS too IIRC
>> managed by container / categories and the compiler knows how to deal with
>> each of them individually and we have also the version of the RBL /
>> compiler it can be used with.
>>
>> Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
>>
>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>
>> > From: aharui@adobe.com
>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:32:16 +0000
>> >
>> > Mike, Fred,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than
>> what
>> > I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
>> > doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this?
>> >
>> > You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I
>> was
>> > just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it
>> > created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the
>> > SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
>> >
>> > I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
>> > actually get around to this.
>> >
>> > Thanks again,
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
>> > >
>> > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Alex,
>> > >>
>> > >> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files
>> together
>> > >> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess
>> > >>most of
>> > >> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
>> > >> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I
>> don't
>> > >> think it is hard to pick up.
>> > >>
>> > >> Frédéric THOMAS
>> > >>
>> > >> [1]
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
>> > >>randori/compiler/bundle
>> > >>
>> > >> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>> > >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > >> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>> > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Hi Alex,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
>> > >>assist
>> > >> you with this.
>> > >> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I
>> stumbled
>> > >> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
>> > >> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually
>> > >>in a
>> > >> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff
>> > >>to a
>> > >> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add
>> the
>> > >>swc
>> > >> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
>> > >> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
>> > >> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Chris
>> > >> >
>> > >> > ________________________________________
>> > >> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
>> > >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
>> > >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > >> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Hi,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more
>> > >>SWCs.
>> > >> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this
>> refactoring,
>> > >>my
>> > >> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC
>> so
>> > >>the
>> > >> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so
>> simplifies
>> > >> the
>> > >> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I
>> think
>> > >>it
>> > >> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the
>> SWCs:
>> > >> how
>> > >> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts,
>> some
>> > >>of
>> > >> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS,
>> > >>and a
>> > >> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
>> > >> > cross-compiling the AS.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files
>> from
>> > >> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into
>> their
>> > >> own
>> > >> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs.
>> > >>Maybe
>> > >> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put
>> all
>> > >>the
>> > >> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones.
>> What
>> > >>do
>> > >> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -Effects
>> > >> > -Collections
>> > >> > -Binding
>> > >> > -Graphics
>> > >> > -HTTPService
>> > >> > -Charts
>> > >> > -Mobile
>> > >> > -Formatters
>> > >> > -DragDrop
>> > >> > -Google Maps
>> > >> > -Jquery
>> > >> > -CreateJS
>> > >> >
>> > >> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one
>> > >>for
>> > >> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of
>> SWCs
>> > >> > might be the better route.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -Alex
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>.
> Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
Correct Fred.
Fred, are you interested in FlexJS/this type of dev? I mean, if there was
another person on board that knew what was going on with this stuff and say
IntelliJ, it would be a lot more appealing to me to try and find some dev
time for it. It's such a shame all the work we put into this stuff Fred.
Alex, you know how I said I couldn't really justify doing this little hobby
if I didn't have a project. Well, in the last week I put together this in
Feathers/AIR using UDP communication to talk to Bitiwg;
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=259&t=435857
It seems that is Javascript can send UDP messages, this might actually be
an excuse for me to contribute to this project. Being able to create an
application with FlexJS that would do the same thing as the app I just
made, but the UI mad in HTML. I am using OSC UPD messages, so it's not like
that app has to be native if Javascript could communicate that way.
I admit, javascript and I are not best friends but I could see that as
being me test project.
So Fred, where are you at these days?
Mike
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Alex,
>
> The SWCs format as it is today could be read not only by the compiler but
> amongs the tools, the IDEs, extending the existing structure seems fine but
> introducing a new one could break them, in RBL, we can have the SWC, the
> AS sources, the JS classes, 1 all classes JS and the minified JS too IIRC
> managed by container / categories and the compiler knows how to deal with
> each of them individually and we have also the version of the RBL /
> compiler it can be used with.
>
> Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
> > From: aharui@adobe.com
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:32:16 +0000
> >
> > Mike, Fred,
> >
> > Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than
> what
> > I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
> > doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this?
> >
> > You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I was
> > just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it
> > created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the
> > SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
> >
> > I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
> > actually get around to this.
> >
> > Thanks again,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
> > >
> > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
> webdoublefx@hotmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Alex,
> > >>
> > >> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files
> together
> > >> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess
> > >>most of
> > >> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
> > >> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I
> don't
> > >> think it is hard to pick up.
> > >>
> > >> Frédéric THOMAS
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> > >>
> https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
> > >>randori/compiler/bundle
> > >>
> > >> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > >> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi Alex,
> > >> >
> > >> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
> > >>assist
> > >> you with this.
> > >> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I
> stumbled
> > >> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> > >> >
> > >> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
> > >> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually
> > >>in a
> > >> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff
> > >>to a
> > >> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add
> the
> > >>swc
> > >> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
> > >> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
> > >> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
> > >> >
> > >> > Chris
> > >> >
> > >> > ________________________________________
> > >> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> > >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > >> >
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more
> > >>SWCs.
> > >> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this
> refactoring,
> > >>my
> > >> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so
> > >>the
> > >> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so
> simplifies
> > >> the
> > >> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I
> think
> > >>it
> > >> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> > >> >
> > >> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the
> SWCs:
> > >> how
> > >> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some
> > >>of
> > >> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS,
> > >>and a
> > >> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> > >> > cross-compiling the AS.
> > >> >
> > >> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files
> from
> > >> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into
> their
> > >> own
> > >> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs.
> > >>Maybe
> > >> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put
> all
> > >>the
> > >> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> > >> >
> > >> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones.
> What
> > >>do
> > >> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> > >> >
> > >> > -Effects
> > >> > -Collections
> > >> > -Binding
> > >> > -Graphics
> > >> > -HTTPService
> > >> > -Charts
> > >> > -Mobile
> > >> > -Formatters
> > >> > -DragDrop
> > >> > -Google Maps
> > >> > -Jquery
> > >> > -CreateJS
> > >> >
> > >> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one
> > >>for
> > >> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> > >> >
> > >> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of
> SWCs
> > >> > might be the better route.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Alex
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
>
RE: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Alex,
The SWCs format as it is today could be read not only by the compiler but amongs the tools, the IDEs, extending the existing structure seems fine but introducing a new one could break them, in RBL, we can have the SWC, the AS sources, the JS classes, 1 all classes JS and the minified JS too IIRC managed by container / categories and the compiler knows how to deal with each of them individually and we have also the version of the RBL / compiler it can be used with.
Don't hesitate to correct or complete me Mike, that's a long time.
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: aharui@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:32:16 +0000
>
> Mike, Fred,
>
> Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than what
> I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
> doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this?
>
> You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I was
> just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it
> created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the
> SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
>
> I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
> actually get around to this.
>
> Thanks again,
> -Alex
>
> On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
> >
> >On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files together
> >> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess
> >>most of
> >> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
> >> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I don't
> >> think it is hard to pick up.
> >>
> >> Frédéric THOMAS
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> >>https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
> >>randori/compiler/bundle
> >>
> >> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> >> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
> >> >
> >> > Hi Alex,
> >> >
> >> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
> >>assist
> >> you with this.
> >> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled
> >> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> >> >
> >> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
> >> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually
> >>in a
> >> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff
> >>to a
> >> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the
> >>swc
> >> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
> >> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
> >> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________
> >> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> >> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more
> >>SWCs.
> >> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring,
> >>my
> >> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so
> >>the
> >> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies
> >> the
> >> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think
> >>it
> >> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> >> >
> >> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs:
> >> how
> >> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some
> >>of
> >> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS,
> >>and a
> >> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> >> > cross-compiling the AS.
> >> >
> >> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
> >> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their
> >> own
> >> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs.
> >>Maybe
> >> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all
> >>the
> >> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> >> >
> >> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What
> >>do
> >> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> >> >
> >> > -Effects
> >> > -Collections
> >> > -Binding
> >> > -Graphics
> >> > -HTTPService
> >> > -Charts
> >> > -Mobile
> >> > -Formatters
> >> > -DragDrop
> >> > -Google Maps
> >> > -Jquery
> >> > -CreateJS
> >> >
> >> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one
> >>for
> >> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
> >> > might be the better route.
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Mike, Fred,
Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than what
I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it
doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this?
You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I was
just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it
created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the
SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder.
I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I
actually get around to this.
Thanks again,
-Alex
On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
>
>On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files together
>> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess
>>most of
>> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
>> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I don't
>> think it is hard to pick up.
>>
>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>
>> [1]
>>
>>https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/
>>randori/compiler/bundle
>>
>> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
>> >
>> > Hi Alex,
>> >
>> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to
>>assist
>> you with this.
>> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled
>> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
>> >
>> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
>> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually
>>in a
>> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff
>>to a
>> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the
>>swc
>> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
>> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
>> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
>> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
>> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more
>>SWCs.
>> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring,
>>my
>> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so
>>the
>> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies
>> the
>> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think
>>it
>> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
>> >
>> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs:
>> how
>> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some
>>of
>> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS,
>>and a
>> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
>> > cross-compiling the AS.
>> >
>> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
>> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their
>> own
>> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs.
>>Maybe
>> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all
>>the
>> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
>> >
>> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What
>>do
>> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
>> >
>> > -Effects
>> > -Collections
>> > -Binding
>> > -Graphics
>> > -HTTPService
>> > -Charts
>> > -Mobile
>> > -Formatters
>> > -DragDrop
>> > -Google Maps
>> > -Jquery
>> > -CreateJS
>> >
>> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one
>>for
>> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
>> >
>> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
>> > might be the better route.
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>>
>>
Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>.
Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :)
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files together
> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess most of
> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle
> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I don't
> think it is hard to pick up.
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/randori/compiler/bundle
>
> > From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to assist
> you with this.
> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled
> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> >
> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the
> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually in a
> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff to a
> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the swc
> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler
> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all
> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies
> the
> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think it
> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> >
> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs:
> how
> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some of
> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS, and a
> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> > cross-compiling the AS.
> >
> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their
> own
> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs. Maybe
> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all the
> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> >
> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What do
> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> >
> > -Effects
> > -Collections
> > -Binding
> > -Graphics
> > -HTTPService
> > -Charts
> > -Mobile
> > -Formatters
> > -DragDrop
> > -Google Maps
> > -Jquery
> > -CreateJS
> >
> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one for
> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> >
> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
> > might be the better route.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
>
>
RE: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Alex,
Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files together in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess most of this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I don't think it is hard to pick up.
Frédéric THOMAS
[1] https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java/randori/compiler/bundle
> From: christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to assist you with this.
> As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
>
> It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually in a directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff to a local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the swc deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>
> Hi,
>
> As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
> As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
> next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
> SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies the
> command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think it
> makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
>
> But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs: how
> many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some of
> the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS, and a
> bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> cross-compiling the AS.
>
> The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
> FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their own
> SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs. Maybe
> it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all the
> chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
>
> Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What do
> folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
>
> -Effects
> -Collections
> -Binding
> -Graphics
> -HTTPService
> -Charts
> -Mobile
> -Formatters
> -DragDrop
> -Google Maps
> -Jquery
> -CreateJS
>
> And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one for
> handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
>
> Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
> might be the better route.
>
> -Alex
>
RE: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Frédéric THOMAS <we...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Mike.
Bump !! Answered in the same time :-)
Frédéric THOMAS
> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:14:25 -0400
> Subject: Re: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> From: teotigraphixllc@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Alex,
>
> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
> As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
> next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
> SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library
>
> We did this in Randori and I called them Bundles. I actually wrote a pretty
> insane compiler to compile, SWCs, JS and some other stuff into an archive.
> I actually had a manifets inside the root that described to whole package
> of JS and such. This was all integrated into the IntelliJ plugin Fred and I
> wrote.
>
> It's to bad I don't have enough time right now to get deep into this. Seems
> like you are going to reinvent the wheel here. I spent like 4 months on
> this in Randori. We had it tested and everything.
>
> So like I said, I wrote a compiler that called all the sub compilers,
> FlaconJX, SWC etc. At the end of the compile, the main compiler packages
> everything.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to assist
> > you with this.
> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled
> > over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
> >
> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the flash-related
> > classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually in a directory
> > "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff to a local
> > directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the swc deps
> > normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler dependency.
> > Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all "(Better) IDE
> > support" issues out there ;-)
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> > An: dev@flex.apache.org
> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies the
> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think it
> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
> >
> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs: how
> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some of
> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS, and a
> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> > cross-compiling the AS.
> >
> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their own
> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs. Maybe
> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all the
> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
> >
> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What do
> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
> >
> > -Effects
> > -Collections
> > -Binding
> > -Graphics
> > -HTTPService
> > -Charts
> > -Mobile
> > -Formatters
> > -DragDrop
> > -Google Maps
> > -Jquery
> > -CreateJS
> >
> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one for
> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
> >
> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
> > might be the better route.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
Re: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Michael Schmalle <te...@gmail.com>.
Alex,
> As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library
We did this in Randori and I called them Bundles. I actually wrote a pretty
insane compiler to compile, SWCs, JS and some other stuff into an archive.
I actually had a manifets inside the root that described to whole package
of JS and such. This was all integrated into the IntelliJ plugin Fred and I
wrote.
It's to bad I don't have enough time right now to get deep into this. Seems
like you are going to reinvent the wheel here. I spent like 4 months on
this in Randori. We had it tested and everything.
So like I said, I wrote a compiler that called all the sub compilers,
FlaconJX, SWC etc. At the end of the compile, the main compiler packages
everything.
Mike
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to assist
> you with this.
> As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled
> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
>
> It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the flash-related
> classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually in a directory
> "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff to a local
> directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the swc deps
> normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler dependency.
> Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all "(Better) IDE
> support" issues out there ;-)
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
>
> Hi,
>
> As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
> As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
> next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
> SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies the
> command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think it
> makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
>
> But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs: how
> many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some of
> the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS, and a
> bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
> cross-compiling the AS.
>
> The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
> FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their own
> SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs. Maybe
> it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all the
> chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
>
> Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What do
> folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
>
> -Effects
> -Collections
> -Binding
> -Graphics
> -HTTPService
> -Charts
> -Mobile
> -Formatters
> -DragDrop
> -Google Maps
> -Jquery
> -CreateJS
>
> And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one for
> handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
>
> Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
> might be the better route.
>
> -Alex
>
>
AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
Hi Alex,
I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to assist you with this.
As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I stumbled over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-)
It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually in a directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff to a local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the swc deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-)
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs
Hi,
As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more SWCs.
As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, my
next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so the
SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so simplifies the
command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think it
makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs.
But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the SWCs: how
many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some of
the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS, and a
bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by
cross-compiling the AS.
The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files from
FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into their own
SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs. Maybe
it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all the
chart code in one SWC. What do others think?
Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What do
folks think of that? There could be a SWC for:
-Effects
-Collections
-Binding
-Graphics
-HTTPService
-Charts
-Mobile
-Formatters
-DragDrop
-Google Maps
-Jquery
-CreateJS
And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one for
handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs.
Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs
might be the better route.
-Alex