I don't know enough about how Flex Tool Groups work to form an opinion. Can you provide more details and explain how folks would configure things on the command-line?
AIUI, -js-output-type is sort of overloaded right now, because the FLEXJS_DUAL dictates the output of a SWF. In my plan to combine things, I would introduce a new configuration parameter like -output-type or -targets or something like that. I supposed it could be a list of compiler jars to run. But -js-output-type doesn't currently go through different jars for JSC, NODE, and FLEXJS. That parameter just sets up a few configuration changes within the output classes. I'm pretty sure Schmalle imagined a true plug-in architecture for the emitters as well. Not sure we want to take all of that on right now, but we might want to consider that as well. -Alex On 10/7/16, 12:14 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >I would like to propose a different approach: > > >Unless these approaches led to a dead end and there is no solution down >that path, I would rather suggest to refactor the compiler to allow >dynamic adding of alternate compilers. Currently the supported compilers >are limited by the JsOutputType enum. If we however used something like >the Java service thing I used for the Flex Tool Groups, we could allow >new experiments to start in dedicated Jars and we wouldn't have such a >mixture in case someone wants to try something out. > > >Chris > >________________________________ >Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Oktober 2016 00:25:30 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re: AW: >[FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order) > >+1. Bonus points for making a tag and/or branch before deleting. > >-Alex > >On 10/6/16, 3:02 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Makes sense to me. I say we simply delete it. No need to transfer to >>another folder. It'll still be in the repository's history. >> >>- Josh >> >>On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Carlos Rovira >><carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com >>> wrote: >> >>> I want to propose the same. I something was an experiment and is no >>>more >>> developed. I think it should go to some folder that make people avoid >>> confusion about what code is valid and what is left behind. >>> >>> 2016-10-06 23:12 GMT+02:00 Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>: >>> >>> > I stumble over tons of VF2JS classes and think it would be better to >>>move >>> > stuf like that to some sort of attic. What do you think? >>> > >>> > >>> > Chris >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > Von: Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> >>> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 17:13:49 >>> > An: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > Betreff: Re: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re: AW: >>> > [FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order) >>> > >>> > JSC is meant to be purely an ActionScript to JavaScript transpiler >>> without >>> > any frameworks. By default, it doesn't export an HTML file, but it >>>will >>> > optionally support custom HTML templates in 0.8.0. It is exposed >>>through >>> > the js/bin/asjsc executable, where it loads the >>>frameworks/js-config.xml >>> > configuration. js-config.xml references js.swc to give ActionScript >>> access >>> > to browser APIs. >>> > >>> > NODE generates an index.js that bootstraps things for Node.js. It is >>> > exposed through the js/bin/asnodec executable, which it loads the >>> > frameworks/node-config.xml configuration. In addition to js.swc, >>> > node-config.xml references node.swc to give ActionScript access to >>> Node.js >>> > APIs. >>> > >>> > As far as I know, AMD and VF2JS are no longer maintained. I assume >>>AMD >>> > tried to output AMD modules instead of goog modules. I remember Alex >>>or >>> > someone mentioning that VF2JS had something to do with the original >>>Flex >>> > framework, but I don't know the details. >>> > >>> > - Josh >>> > >>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Christofer Dutz < >>> > christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi Alex, >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > yesterday I stumbled over this flexjs-dual output type while >>>looking >>> for >>> > > the correct settings to buid a pure JS app. Would it be possible >>>for >>> you >>> > > guys to give a short summary of what the different output types >>> actually >>> > > are? The enum doesn't contain any documentation on this and I guess >>> this >>> > > would be really helpful. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > So far I see these output types: >>> > > >>> > > AMD >>> > > FLEXJS >>> > > GOOG >>> > > VF2JS >>> > > FLEXJS_DUAL >>> > > JSC >>> > > NODE >>> > > >>> > > And I guess I only used no value and FLEXJS >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Chris >>> > > >>> > > ________________________________ >>> > > Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >>> > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:45:48 >>> > > An: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > > Betreff: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re: AW: >>> > > [FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order) >>> > > >>> > > Fred Thomas did some work in this area about a year ago. In the >>> > > flex-oem-compiler module that FB (and maybe other IDEs) use to talk >>>to >>> > the >>> > > compiler, he added a FLEXJS_DUAL -js-output-type. Not sure how >>>well it >>> > > works. >>> > > >>> > > Thinking about this some more we'd have to have the same >>>configuration >>> > > options available to both compilers which might be a bit strange. >>>Or >>> > > maybe we can convince the compilers to not complain about unknown >>> config >>> > > parameters. >>> > > >>> > > We'd have to decide on how to reset the library-path for each >>>compile. >>> > > The JS compile might use different SWCs than the SWF compile. >>> > > >>> > > We'd have to select a few conditional compile options that would be >>> > > different for each compiler. For example, COMPILE::SWF would be >>>true >>> for >>> > > SWF compiling and false for JS compiling and vice versa, and maybe >>> > finding >>> > > those params on the command-line would have no effect since they >>>would >>> be >>> > > dictated by the compiler. >>> > > >>> > > Thoughts? >>> > > -Alex >>> > > >>> > > On 10/2/16, 1:45 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >That would be ideal! >>> > > > >>> > > >- Josh >>> > > > >>> > > >On Oct 1, 2016 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >> One more thought on this: now that COMPJSC can more or less >>>build >>> its >>> > > >>own >>> > > >> output instead of relying on COMPC to package its pile of .js >>>files, >>> > it >>> > > >> might be worth experimenting with combining Falcon and FalconJX >>>so >>> > COMPC >>> > > >> can produce a SWC or a SWC with JS files based on some >>>configuration >>> > > >> parameter. Then there would only be one compiler that produces >>>SWFs >>> > or >>> > > >>JS >>> > > >> based on some -output-type flag. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Thoughts? >>> > > >> -Alex >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On 10/1/16, 10:18 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >Hi Chris, >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >When I read this, I realized I already pushed the changes when >>>I >>> > pushed >>> > > >> >some other changes yesterday. If the Maven build didn't blow >>>up, >>> it >>> > is >>> > > >> >probably because it is using its own compile-xx-config.xml >>>files so >>> > is >>> > > >> >still generating a pile of .js files and packaging them up on >>>the >>> SWF >>> > > >> >COMPC run. >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >-Alex >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >On 10/1/16, 6:10 AM, "Christofer Dutz" >>><christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >>> > > >>wrote: >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >>Hi Alex, >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >>so I guess ideally this change should be done on a feature >>>branch, >>> > so >>> > > >>I >>> > > >> >>can sort out the Maven issues and we'll merge that back as >>>soon as >>> > > >>all is >>> > > >> >>working. I would like to ask you to create a >>> > > >>"feature-autobuild/"-branch >>> > > >> >>for that. Just give me a short note what branch the stuff is >>>in >>> and >>> > > >>I'll >>> > > >> >>try to sort out the Maven issues. >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >>Chris >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Carlos Rovira >>> Director General >>> M: +34 607 22 60 05 >>> http://www.codeoscopic.com >>> http://www.avant2.es >>> >>> >>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede >>>contener >>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje >>>por >>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma >>>vía y >>> proceda a su destrucción. >>> >>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le >>>comunicamos >>> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es >>>CODEOSCOPIC >>> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del >>> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, >>> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a >>>nuestras >>> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación >>> necesaria. >>> >
