In the bin/js-release directory, all of the generated JavaScript is concatenated into a single file, so it no longer uses goog.require(). That should work in environments that cannot load multiple scripts.
- Josh On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:35 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would really like to use FalconJX for ExtendScript development. > ExtendScript is Adobe’s flavor of Javascript used in their creative apps. > They have an old version of SpiderMonkey as the underlying engine (which > still had E4X support). I have some really complex scripts and currently > the single biggest time waster when developing scripts is dumb typos. > > I did some research and although there are 1033 classes in InDesign in a > single version alone (there are many different versions of the DOM, there’s > all the other apps and some core packages as well), I can automate the > creation of ActionScript classes using the omv files that are used to > create documentation of the ExtendScript classes. > > Theoretically, I can get this working with minimal effort. > > My question is how usable is FlaconJX (in its current state) for > generating Javascript that’s not targeting the browser? I know it’s using > goog for linking files which presumably is using browser technologies to > load files. How “hard coded” is that? For ExtendSript, I would probably > either just concatenate all my files into one, or use #include directives > in the file. ExtendScript allows using #include syntax similar to C > languages. > > I’m not sure what other issues there would be with this. > > Thoughts? > > Harbs
