[FalconJx] Refactor Notes of the last couple commits

[Michael Schmalle <ap...@teotigraphix.com>]

Erik,

Now that I have got my project's tests passing again, I thought I  
would voice some of my opinions in a more professional manner after  
the storm.

- 'common' Although I agree with you making things common, I don't  
agree with having sub packages, it seems redundant and confusing, if a  
sub package warrants in common, it should have a real package in  
compiler.
- On the note of this change, if we could have talked about this first  
you would have heard me first say that maybe we should move  
'compiler.as' and 'compiler.js' into a 'compiler.codegen'

Existing

org.apache.flex.compiler.as.codegen
org.apache.flex.compiler.js.codegen

To;

org.apache.flex.compiler.codegen.as
org.apache.flex.compiler.codegen.js

Which then would have allowed;

org.apache.flex.compiler.codegen.IEmitter
org.apache.flex.compiler.codegen.IDocEmitter
org.apache.flex.compiler.codegen.IEmitterTokens

The toplevel codegen becomes the 'common' container.

The same change could be applied to 'driver'. This was a mistake on my  
part when I was originally laying out the first impl of the packages.

- The above I will argue for the 'driver' package as well.

- Tests, I don't understand why addLibraries() and such in ITestBase  
are public API. They will never be called outside of the test. In java  
you would make them abstract and the TestBase class abstract and that  
creates the subclass contract implicitly.

- Also, passing the List as a parameter of those 3 methods  
encapsulates the actual field, then if you are just overridding them  
in a sub class, you are not trying to figure out what field goes  
where, its just a template method that you add entries to the list  
passed.

To me this is enough merrit for at least a discussion about a veto.

I hope you can think about these issues, maybe we can change them down  
the road. Right now there are no reverting necessary.

Mike






-- 
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com

Re: [FalconJx] Refactor Notes of the last couple commits

[Michael Schmalle <mi...@teotigraphix.com>]

Your right about the abstract, that is not something we want to force  
since its on demand invoking. They should be protected and pass the  
collection though.

As I said, the 'as' and 'js' packages within compiler was my mistake.  
I agree that once things get more stable we should talk about one  
final refactor that moves everything to their most logical placements  
within the compiler hierarchy.

I work with people to the point of idealism Erik, I will never  
understand the way somethings get developed in this world, such waste  
of resources. Communication saves resources, especially that most  
valuable resource, time.

Mike


Quoting Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>:

> Mike,
>
>> - 'common' Although I agree with you making things common, I don't agree
>> with having sub packages, it seems redundant and confusing, if a sub package
>> warrants in common, it should have a real package in compiler.
>
> Might be non-native speaker choosing names... The code I put in
> 'common' is code that 'as' and 'mxml' have in common. In that sense,
> for symmetry's sake, I thought it should also have the same sub
> package structure as both 'as' and 'mxml'. Maybe 'shared' or 'general'
> might have been better names for the package?
>
>> - On the note of this change, if we could have talked about this first you
>> would have heard me first say that maybe we should move 'compiler.as' and
>> 'compiler.js' into a 'compiler.codegen'
>> ...
>> The same change could be applied to 'driver'. This was a mistake on my part
>> when I was originally laying out the first impl of the packages.
>
> I see two "mistakes" (your original layout and me blindly
> copying/extending it) combined creating one humongous refactor when
> things quiet down a bit ;-)
>
>> - Tests, I don't understand why addLibraries() and such in ITestBase are
>> public API. They will never be called outside of the test. In java you would
>> make them abstract and the TestBase class abstract and that creates the
>> subclass contract implicitly.
>
> At least one of them has an implementation in TestBase, and the others
> may well have one in the future... I'm not that familiar with Java -
> and AS has no 'abstract' - but wouldn't having an implementation
> prohibit the declaration from being abstract?
>
>> - Also, passing the List as a parameter of those 3 methods encapsulates the
>> actual field, then if you are just overridding them in a sub class, you are
>> not trying to figure out what field goes where, its just a template method
>> that you add entries to the list passed.
>
> That was your original implementation, but again my lack of
> familiarity with Java is probably causing me some problems here. I
> figured that calling 'super' with the list as argument might cause
> problems. In hindsight, it might have been a different aspect of my
> implementation that was causing the problem, prompting the change and
> loosing the advantage of the original approach (would this still work
> when using ITestbase?)
>
>> I hope you can think about these issues, maybe we can change them down the
>> road. Right now there are no reverting necessary.
>
> Excellent!
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>

Re: [FalconJx] Refactor Notes of the last couple commits

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Mike,

> - 'common' Although I agree with you making things common, I don't agree
> with having sub packages, it seems redundant and confusing, if a sub package
> warrants in common, it should have a real package in compiler.

Might be non-native speaker choosing names... The code I put in
'common' is code that 'as' and 'mxml' have in common. In that sense,
for symmetry's sake, I thought it should also have the same sub
package structure as both 'as' and 'mxml'. Maybe 'shared' or 'general'
might have been better names for the package?

> - On the note of this change, if we could have talked about this first you
> would have heard me first say that maybe we should move 'compiler.as' and
> 'compiler.js' into a 'compiler.codegen'
>...
> The same change could be applied to 'driver'. This was a mistake on my part
> when I was originally laying out the first impl of the packages.

I see two "mistakes" (your original layout and me blindly
copying/extending it) combined creating one humongous refactor when
things quiet down a bit ;-)

> - Tests, I don't understand why addLibraries() and such in ITestBase are
> public API. They will never be called outside of the test. In java you would
> make them abstract and the TestBase class abstract and that creates the
> subclass contract implicitly.

At least one of them has an implementation in TestBase, and the others
may well have one in the future... I'm not that familiar with Java -
and AS has no 'abstract' - but wouldn't having an implementation
prohibit the declaration from being abstract?

> - Also, passing the List as a parameter of those 3 methods encapsulates the
> actual field, then if you are just overridding them in a sub class, you are
> not trying to figure out what field goes where, its just a template method
> that you add entries to the list passed.

That was your original implementation, but again my lack of
familiarity with Java is probably causing me some problems here. I
figured that calling 'super' with the list as argument might cause
problems. In hindsight, it might have been a different aspect of my
implementation that was causing the problem, prompting the change and
loosing the advantage of the original approach (would this still work
when using ITestbase?)

> I hope you can think about these issues, maybe we can change them down the
> road. Right now there are no reverting necessary.

Excellent!

EdB



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl