Uh oh... Turns out I was testing against an outdated ASJS lib (pre-fb614905ac), so FalconJx DOESN'T WORK against the current iteration of FlexJS. Sorry about that. I will work on that today, but I don't have a lot of time, so it might be a while before I can catch up, due to next week's travel to the land of golden opportunity.
EdB On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > And another update (things are going much better than I expected): > FalconJx can now emit a fully functional version of the > FlexJSTest_again demo application. You can see it in action here > (provided you use Chrome or Firefox, I just noticed): > > http://people.apache.org/~erikdebruin/flexjs/ > > Onwards and upwards ;-) > > EdB > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >> 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 > > > > -- > Ix Multimedia Software > > Jan Luykenstraat 27 > 3521 VB Utrecht > > T. 06-51952295 > I. www.ixsoftware.nl -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
