I'm about to start working on this. I haven't actually tried anything yet, but my thinking is that there are some interesting issues regarding configuration. Typically, when compiling an application, you define a bunch of compiler options, but for a compilation that should produce two different outputs, you might need two different sets of compiler options. How should that be managed?
For example, you might want a different library-path for the SWF compile vs the JS compile. Or set COMPILE::SWF=true for the SWF build and COMPILE::SWF=false for the JS compile. One possibility is that all platform-specific options have to be specified in -config.xml files and not on the command line. Then for any -load-config option, the JS compile will look for a js-prefixed file. So instead of using compile-as-config.xml and compile-js-config.xml, we would use compile-config.xml and js-compile-config.mxml and you would specify -load-config=compile-config.xml as the compiler option. Another possibility is that the SWF compile would always set COMPILE::SWF=true and COMPILE::JS=false and the JS compile would do the opposite. The JS compile would see if -js-library-path was specified and if not, use the -library-path. The weird thing about this approach is that the SWF compiler needs to support a -js-library-path option otherwise the SWF compiler's configuration checker will throw an error. Adding options that the SWF compiler must ignore doesn't seem right to me. Any other ideas? Thoughts? -Alex On 10/7/16, 8:09 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >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. >>>> >> >
