Back to working on this again... Currently, there are "clients" like MXMLJSC, COMPJSC, and ASDOCJSC. You launch one of these clients. Then you specify (via -js-output-type) what "backend" you want the client to use. A backend supplies an "emitter" that walks the AST and generates some sort of output. These "backends" also currently supply a "publisher" that packages up the output.
I think going forward, there may be a need to have different publishers for the same backend/emitter. For example, it might turn out to be beneficial to specify a Cordova publisher that knows how to place the output and add Cordova plugins to a Cordova project structure. Right now we have an Ant script and it doesn't have an extensible way of adding Cordova plugins. A Cordova-specific publisher could examine the JS output and detect directives to add certain plugins to the Cordova project. That could be a significant time-saver for folks building Cordova apps with FlexJS. Then there is the main goal of this thread which is to allow the developer (especially the developer using an IDE) to launch a single client and run both a SWF compile and a JS compile. SWF compilation is currently done with a different set of clients (MXMLC and COMPC). If I understand Chris's suggestion below, it might be better to have a new client for each backend. So, instead of MXMLJSC with js-output-type=NODE and MXMLJSC with js-output-type=FLEXJS, we'd have MXMLNODEJSC and MXMLFLEXJSC clients and no -js-output-type parameter. Now having an additional switch for the publisher makes this a bit more complex. We might then have an MXMLFLEXJSCCORDOVA as well that knows how to output to Cordova projects. What do folks think of this idea? The backend would no longer be responsible for a publisher. They would be separate entities integrated by a client. Then for Flash Builder, the flex-compiler-oem jar would simply launch more than one of these clients and aggregate the output. Thoughts? -Alex On 12/5/16, 8:52 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Yes I do ... I did a lot of „networking“ with the maven guys in Seville. >It seems that I managed to get the point I didn’t seem to manage via >emails. >Currently I am using different sets of libaries based upon classifiers, >but that’s just a temporary hack. I am hoping that I will be able to make >Maven more polyglot in the near future and then we will probably have a >complete new world of possibilities ;-) > >Chris > >Am 05.12.16, 17:07 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>: > > Thanks Chris, that's helpful. Do you have any thoughts on how to >manage > two different sets of libraries, one for SWF compile, one for JS >compile? > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 12/5/16, 12:44 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >wrote: > > >Hi Alex, > > > >sorry for not responding on that last email ☹... must have missed >that > >one ☹ > > > >For the general functionality of the flex-tool-groups, I simply use >the > >basic Java service registry functionality. > >This allows to lookup a list of instances with a symbolic name. You >can > >add more implementations to the list, by providing a jar with a >simple > >text file named: >“META-INF/services/org.apache.flex.tools.FlexToolGroup”. > >This file only contains class names. Each row will be treated as an > >alternate implementation. > >So if I want to get all “tool-groups”, all I have to do, is to ask >the > >Service registry to give me all >“org.apache.flex.tools.FlexToolGroup”. > >In my case I made sure I defined a universal interface that all > >implementations would implement, so I know that I can simply cast >each > >instance I get back to that base interface. > >In my case in order to add a new compiler called “foo”, all I would >do, > >is to add a jar with a class implementing FlexToolGroup and to make > >“getName” return “foo”. > > > >Currently I would have to extend the Enum JSOutputType to support >“foo”, > >which doesn’t make it that extensible. > > > >Right now I have a template for each type of compilation and a >matching > >“Mojo”. All compiler options go into the configuration file for that > >particular Mojo. Additionally, the Mojo is able to customize the >default > >values used to generate the template. For example, the getDefines >method > >returns different values for CompileASMojo and for CompileJSMojo. > > > >All I have to do then, is to provide the template path to the >compiler > >using the default “execute” method of any of the “FlexTool” > >implementations and simply provide an array of Strings which equals >the > >normal array of Strings the compiler gets in the Ant world. > > > >Hope that explains things a little more. > > > >Chris > > > > > >Am 02.12.16, 19:13 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>: > > > > 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. > > >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
