We are already producing two SWCs per library. For Core, there is Core.swc and CoreJS.swc. I think in Maven we call CoreJS an externs SWC. Right now you can build your application by just referencing Core.swc, since it contains the .JS files, but it contains Class definitions that are based on Flash APIs. It just happens to work for JS as long as you only use the APIs in common between Core.swc and CoreJS.swc.
IMO, it is more legitimate to start using CoreJS.swc for JS output. That way, application developers could use COMPILE::JS and COMPILE::SWF and the right platform APIs to work around issues that might arise. And the primary reason is so, when migrating, it is easier to tell what old code is still depending on Flash APIs without us having to wrap every Sprite and rewrite the event model. That's why, IMO, we want this to be in 0.8.0. I believe we can make everything backward compatible so the Maven usage doesn't change if we don't have time to tweak how Maven uses these SWCs. And, FWIW, AUTO when used for -define=COMPILE::SWF,AUTO and -define=COMPILE::JS,AUTO, would be mapped to COMPILE::SWF,true and COMPILE::JS,false in the SWF compiler and the reverse in the JS compiler. -Alex On 2/1/17, 4:17 AM, "piotrz" <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi Guys, > >If it is possible to do this as Carlos saying without break Maven build I >think we should do this, but not in 0.8.0. We have now enough content to >release. > >Piotr > > > >----- >Apache Flex PMC >piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >-- >View this message in context: >http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FALCONJX-Combining-SW >F-and-JS-compilers-was-Re-AW-FalconJX-FlexJS-COMPJSC-and-Build-order-tp556 >24p58914.html >Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
