Isn't that similar to the "maybe even data (JSON?)" part of option 2? Then the "data" would simply be the original properties file. I just thought as we have a compile/build step anyway, JSON would be much easier to parse in JavaScript (built-in!) than a properties file.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > On 1/21/13 12:01 AM, "Frank Wienberg" <fr...@jangaroo.net> wrote: > > > Besides ActionScript and MXML, there is a third source file format for > > which mxmlc can produce code: properties files. > > Thus, for FalconJx, like for MXML, we have to decide which way to go: > either > > > > 1. let Falcon generate the temporary ActionScript class and compile > that > > to JavaScript, or > > 2. produce JavaScript code or maybe even data (JSON?) directly from > the > > properties file. > Sorry, I didn't read the whole email, but I believe there is a 3rd option > (and more) > 3. Don't reduce string-only properties files to the current class > structure, > just take them in as a string and parse them in the framework. How often > do > folks actually use binary resources? > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >
