I'd have to look into it for specifics, but of the top of my head it
seems that this most depends on the implementation in the FlexJS JS
framework. Emitting the strings required by that framework should
really be easy enough. If needed we can "look forward" into AST to
look for binding information. I do this in several other places
already. Even the binding expressions shouldn't be too much of a
problem, again depending on how this will be handled by the JS
framework.
EdB
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> [Bindable] results in extra codegen. Binding expressions with {} is a whole
> other ball of work.
>
> I think in FalconJX you might have to modify the node tree in several places
> when you hit a [Bindable] node.
>
> It isn't working correctly in FalconJS either, but my "customer" needs it so
> I'm hacking a fix.
>
>
> On 3/27/13 1:28 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> No, not yet. How is this set up in FlexJS? I'm sure I can read Metadata and
>> Databinding information, so I guess it depends on the requirements for the
>> emitted JS if I can easily implement this ;-)
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>>> Does FalconJX handle [Bindable]? My "customer" is using it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/27/13 11:56 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>:
>>>>
>>>>> Another one popped into my head just now: I have a gut feeling there
>>>>> is a bit of circular logic going on in the whole 'backend',
>>>>> 'blockwalker' and 'emitter' construct. More specifically in the way
>>>>> the references to them are passed around as arguments in the
>>>>> constructors for the various classes. But I can't wrap around it well
>>>>> enough to figure out whether it's wrong and if so, what might be done
>>>>> about it. Don't get me wrong, it works well, it's just that it somehow
>>>>> isn't "elegant". And that's in no way a comment on the effectiveness
>>>>> or quality of your code, just something I thought I'd share and see
>>>>> what you think.
>>>>
>>>> Actually I think it works fine. The problem you are facing is with the
>>>> MXML emitter I am sure. This adds complexity to what you are trying to
>>>> accomplish and it is circular from the perspective of using AS within
>>>> MXML.
>>>>
>>>> There is a buffer writer(output stream), a writer, a visitor and emitter.
>>>>
>>>> Each one takes a dependency of its parent. Trust me, if there is a
>>>> child that knows about its parent I am blind. Like I said, the block
>>>> walker is a visitor and the emitter is a visitor. You cannot escape
>>>> the fact there is recursion.
>>>>
>>>> If you can think of a more elegant way to set it up, by all means
>>>> write a prototype. Remember, I wrote this with an atom bomb under me
>>>> and lighting in the sky, there may be parts that could be logicalized.
>>>>
>>>> I have another full compiler in Randori that I am going to use as a
>>>> proof of concept with compiler plugins and my ASDoc compiler I wrote.
>>>> So I guess we both can experiment, we can agree to leave the core
>>>> alone for the time being.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> EdB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just kidding ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm really happy with FalconJx, once you get to know it it's a
>>>>>> pleasure to work with. I hope my last commits didn't give you any
>>>>>> additional work in your other projects? I did my best to leave all the
>>>>>> APIs alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of TODOs in the code, and I would also like to
>>>>>> suggest some kind of code review or something (I'm not used to working
>>>>>> in groups, but that seems like a nice thing to do), since I've been
>>>>>> piling on stuff. I did my best to keep everything clean and in line
>>>>>> with the spirit of the rest of the code, but there are some areas
>>>>>> where I'd like to have a second opinion. Like with the code that is
>>>>>> copied between the DOC and JS emitters, seems there might be room for
>>>>>> improvement there. Also of note is the way I've implemented the AS
>>>>>> emitting within the MXML emitter, not really sure if I did the right
>>>>>> thing there. And finally (not really, but this is all I can think of
>>>>>> for now, after the marathon hacking I did today) there is the whole
>>>>>> "programming to interfaces, not implementations" part that we nearly
>>>>>> adhere to, but not quite, we might have another look at that as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EdB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Michael Schmalle
>>>>>> <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> No thats not what I meant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am saying with the Randori project compiler, I have not had to
>>> touch the
>>>>>>> core framework for weeks and it is compiling 1000's of lines of code.
>>> And
>>>>>>> application code now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I meant to say was, the design keeps people in the correct
>>> spaces. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note; I AM SURE there are as3 bugs coming, its just nice not
>>>>>>> having to chase
>>>>>>> them right now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>> Alex Harui
>>> Flex SDK Team
>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Alex Harui
> Flex SDK Team
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
