On 3/15/13 1:14 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
> The problem is, SWF is so
> interconnected in the generator packages that you might have a problem
> getting a polarity with using the BURM.
Don't know what "polarity" meant, but hopefully it doesn't really matter.
>
> On that note; This would take more study to fully understand, but at
> the moment I don't have time to investigate. I guess you will have to
> weigh the options or get a "feel" for the Falcon framework when your
> not under as much of a timeline/deadline?
>
> That being said, the FalconJx framework was meant to be created in
> component sections, so if your end goal is to create things with it
> fully, I would suggest things being ported to its emitter, or it will
> for ever have a crutch on SWF.
>
Good point about the generators being tied to SWF constructs. But I am
assuming you that, in order to service different file types we will have
several emitters? One for AS, one for MXML/AS? I think I will create one
for CSS and someone will create one for FXG->SVG? And since these two
probably won't generate JS "classes", I think they won't be tied to the SWF
constructs in the generator and thus will copy over "easily".
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
