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 2013/09/04 01:13:04 UTC
[FALCON] Parity with MXMLC
In my tour through Falcon to get BasicTests to run, I saw there were
several things that MXMLC could do that were un-implemented. OTOH the
list was:
-Function data-binding
-XML data-binding
-Repeaters
There may be more. I got enough of function data-binding to work to get
BasicTests to run, but it won't work in the general case yet. But I think
it should be somewhat straightforward to do.
I haven't looked into getting XML data-binding to work. I do know that
XML data-binding is very Flash-specific. Flash XML nodes support some
sort of change notification. I don't see any way for us to support this
in FlexJS, so for FlexJS, I'm thinking we'll simply say you can't use XML
data-binding and maybe add a compiler option to warn where you use it.
Repeaters generate some pretty complicated code, IIRC. I think Adobe
would have deprecated it if we could.
So the question is: Can we make Falcon releases without full
implementation of these features? Can we get away with never supporting
Repeater?
-Alex
Re: [FALCON] Parity with MXMLC
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 04/09/2013 00:32, Carlos Rovira wrote:
> to say that Repeaters are everywhere. So I'm afraid that Falcon will need
> that things to make it production ready.
But all new builds would I hope be using a List with an item renderer
instead...
Tom
Re: [FALCON] Parity with MXMLC
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
Yeah! Congratulations for reach this important milestone! :)
2013/9/4 Cosma Colanicchia <co...@gmail.com>
> ...and its great to see a thread with this title, good job! :)
>
>
> 2013/9/4 Cosma Colanicchia <co...@gmail.com>
>
> > Hi, in my personal opinion Repeaters support should be discontinued in
> > Falcon. It looks like an "intrusive" feature, don't know if it's worth
> the
> > effort to implement it, its mantainance costs and the related code
> > complexity growth (energy that could be put somewhere else).
> >
> > And, old projects still heavily using them have could always continue
> > using the old compiler, and they probably will anyway.
> >
> > (just my 2 cents)
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/4 Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> >
> >> Hi Alex,
> >>
> >> although I hate Repeaters and does not use it since many years ago, I
> must
> >> to say that Repeaters are everywhere. So I'm afraid that Falcon will
> need
> >> that things to make it production ready. If we want to be able to use it
> >> in
> >> old projects...If the plan is only use it for new ones, I'm sure that it
> >> would be even better so Repeater will be unavailable for falcon projects
> >> :)
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/9/4 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> >>
> >> > In my tour through Falcon to get BasicTests to run, I saw there were
> >> > several things that MXMLC could do that were un-implemented. OTOH the
> >> > list was:
> >> >
> >> > -Function data-binding
> >> > -XML data-binding
> >> > -Repeaters
> >> >
> >> > There may be more. I got enough of function data-binding to work to
> get
> >> > BasicTests to run, but it won't work in the general case yet. But I
> >> think
> >> > it should be somewhat straightforward to do.
> >> >
> >> > I haven't looked into getting XML data-binding to work. I do know
> that
> >> > XML data-binding is very Flash-specific. Flash XML nodes support some
> >> > sort of change notification. I don't see any way for us to support
> this
> >> > in FlexJS, so for FlexJS, I'm thinking we'll simply say you can't use
> >> XML
> >> > data-binding and maybe add a compiler option to warn where you use it.
> >> >
> >> > Repeaters generate some pretty complicated code, IIRC. I think Adobe
> >> > would have deprecated it if we could.
> >> >
> >> > So the question is: Can we make Falcon releases without full
> >> > implementation of these features? Can we get away with never
> supporting
> >> > Repeater?
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlos Rovira
> >> Director de Tecnología
> >> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >> F: +34 912 94 80 80
> >> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> >> http://www.directwriter.es
> >> http://www.avant2.es
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F: +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es
Re: [FALCON] Parity with MXMLC
Posted by Cosma Colanicchia <co...@gmail.com>.
...and its great to see a thread with this title, good job! :)
2013/9/4 Cosma Colanicchia <co...@gmail.com>
> Hi, in my personal opinion Repeaters support should be discontinued in
> Falcon. It looks like an "intrusive" feature, don't know if it's worth the
> effort to implement it, its mantainance costs and the related code
> complexity growth (energy that could be put somewhere else).
>
> And, old projects still heavily using them have could always continue
> using the old compiler, and they probably will anyway.
>
> (just my 2 cents)
>
>
> 2013/9/4 Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> although I hate Repeaters and does not use it since many years ago, I must
>> to say that Repeaters are everywhere. So I'm afraid that Falcon will need
>> that things to make it production ready. If we want to be able to use it
>> in
>> old projects...If the plan is only use it for new ones, I'm sure that it
>> would be even better so Repeater will be unavailable for falcon projects
>> :)
>>
>>
>> 2013/9/4 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
>>
>> > In my tour through Falcon to get BasicTests to run, I saw there were
>> > several things that MXMLC could do that were un-implemented. OTOH the
>> > list was:
>> >
>> > -Function data-binding
>> > -XML data-binding
>> > -Repeaters
>> >
>> > There may be more. I got enough of function data-binding to work to get
>> > BasicTests to run, but it won't work in the general case yet. But I
>> think
>> > it should be somewhat straightforward to do.
>> >
>> > I haven't looked into getting XML data-binding to work. I do know that
>> > XML data-binding is very Flash-specific. Flash XML nodes support some
>> > sort of change notification. I don't see any way for us to support this
>> > in FlexJS, so for FlexJS, I'm thinking we'll simply say you can't use
>> XML
>> > data-binding and maybe add a compiler option to warn where you use it.
>> >
>> > Repeaters generate some pretty complicated code, IIRC. I think Adobe
>> > would have deprecated it if we could.
>> >
>> > So the question is: Can we make Falcon releases without full
>> > implementation of these features? Can we get away with never supporting
>> > Repeater?
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carlos Rovira
>> Director de Tecnología
>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
>> F: +34 912 94 80 80
>> http://www.codeoscopic.com
>> http://www.directwriter.es
>> http://www.avant2.es
>>
>
>
Re: [FALCON] Parity with MXMLC
Posted by Cosma Colanicchia <co...@gmail.com>.
Hi, in my personal opinion Repeaters support should be discontinued in
Falcon. It looks like an "intrusive" feature, don't know if it's worth the
effort to implement it, its mantainance costs and the related code
complexity growth (energy that could be put somewhere else).
And, old projects still heavily using them have could always continue using
the old compiler, and they probably will anyway.
(just my 2 cents)
2013/9/4 Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>
> Hi Alex,
>
> although I hate Repeaters and does not use it since many years ago, I must
> to say that Repeaters are everywhere. So I'm afraid that Falcon will need
> that things to make it production ready. If we want to be able to use it in
> old projects...If the plan is only use it for new ones, I'm sure that it
> would be even better so Repeater will be unavailable for falcon projects :)
>
>
> 2013/9/4 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
>
> > In my tour through Falcon to get BasicTests to run, I saw there were
> > several things that MXMLC could do that were un-implemented. OTOH the
> > list was:
> >
> > -Function data-binding
> > -XML data-binding
> > -Repeaters
> >
> > There may be more. I got enough of function data-binding to work to get
> > BasicTests to run, but it won't work in the general case yet. But I
> think
> > it should be somewhat straightforward to do.
> >
> > I haven't looked into getting XML data-binding to work. I do know that
> > XML data-binding is very Flash-specific. Flash XML nodes support some
> > sort of change notification. I don't see any way for us to support this
> > in FlexJS, so for FlexJS, I'm thinking we'll simply say you can't use XML
> > data-binding and maybe add a compiler option to warn where you use it.
> >
> > Repeaters generate some pretty complicated code, IIRC. I think Adobe
> > would have deprecated it if we could.
> >
> > So the question is: Can we make Falcon releases without full
> > implementation of these features? Can we get away with never supporting
> > Repeater?
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> Director de Tecnología
> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> F: +34 912 94 80 80
> http://www.codeoscopic.com
> http://www.directwriter.es
> http://www.avant2.es
>
Re: [FALCON] Parity with MXMLC
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
Hi Alex,
although I hate Repeaters and does not use it since many years ago, I must
to say that Repeaters are everywhere. So I'm afraid that Falcon will need
that things to make it production ready. If we want to be able to use it in
old projects...If the plan is only use it for new ones, I'm sure that it
would be even better so Repeater will be unavailable for falcon projects :)
2013/9/4 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> In my tour through Falcon to get BasicTests to run, I saw there were
> several things that MXMLC could do that were un-implemented. OTOH the
> list was:
>
> -Function data-binding
> -XML data-binding
> -Repeaters
>
> There may be more. I got enough of function data-binding to work to get
> BasicTests to run, but it won't work in the general case yet. But I think
> it should be somewhat straightforward to do.
>
> I haven't looked into getting XML data-binding to work. I do know that
> XML data-binding is very Flash-specific. Flash XML nodes support some
> sort of change notification. I don't see any way for us to support this
> in FlexJS, so for FlexJS, I'm thinking we'll simply say you can't use XML
> data-binding and maybe add a compiler option to warn where you use it.
>
> Repeaters generate some pretty complicated code, IIRC. I think Adobe
> would have deprecated it if we could.
>
> So the question is: Can we make Falcon releases without full
> implementation of these features? Can we get away with never supporting
> Repeater?
>
> -Alex
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F: +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es
Re: [FALCON] Parity with MXMLC
Posted by BorekB <bo...@gmail.com>.
In my opinion, function-binding is a must, XML would be hard to impossible to
support as you noted and a compiler warning sounds like a good suggestion,
and as for repeaters, I would drop the support for them. It was a weird
feature even with MXML compiler (had some strange limitations).
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FALCON-Parity-with-MXMLC-tp29168p29509.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.