I got the resources working so I will look into Proxy.callProperty.
The issue with js-dynamic-access isn't about MX RemoteObject vs Basic
RemoteObject, it is whether, if we fixed places in any of the code where
minification breaks things, what the size/performance trade-off would be. Some
variable names would be longer, but some other code might be more verbose as
public vars are converted into getter/setters and have function call overhead.
I guess we'll find out when we get someone's app to the point where they are
ready to get the production version to run.
-Alex
On 10/14/18, 2:23 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex,
El dom., 14 oct. 2018 a las 18:32, Alex Harui (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> JS proxy doesn't support callProperty yet. Feel free to add it, or I will
> after I finish up ResourceManager.
>
JS proxy is mx.utlis.ObjectProxy or you mean maybe AbstractService
callProperty?
I could take a look, but no promises since I don't know exactly how that
works. A little of guidance here could me make get this done.
>
> I don't doubt that minification breaks lots of things that
> js-dynamic-access fixes. Hard to say how much smaller your app would be
if
> we fixed anough stuff without that option.
>
>
well, including mx:RemoteObject seems to increase significantly my current
app in release mode "mx" is 1'8mb while "org.apache.royale" is 1'8mb...but
is ok for me since I think is a normal payload for the base of a normal
App, and MX RO here does an important role in my case. So happy to pay the
price ;)
> -Alex
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C271df86831984fcd67aa08d6321b383a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636751489821228781&sdata=%2B%2B32YguJtIOO%2Bj0y%2BEegG%2FD3p0jYr2ZK51QGO51yER0%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
