I pushed changes to the compiler and framework to try to get callProperty to
work. I don't have a test case but give it a try and see what happens.
If you compare the size of the output with and without -js-dynamic-access, you
can see the theoretical savings of not using that option. If that savings
might matter, then it might be worth spending some time on fixing up the issues
that -js-dynamic-access "works around". But keep in mind that there probably
isn't any way to grab all of the theoretical savings. What we don’t know yet
is where you'll actually end up. It might even be true that -js-dynamic-access
is more optimal.
-Alex
On 10/14/18, 3:02 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex
El dom., 14 oct. 2018 a las 23:48, Alex Harui (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> I got the resources working so I will look into Proxy.callProperty.
>
>
That's cool, I'm closing for today, I can try in some hours if you upload
some changes. Thanks
> 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.
>
Well, I'll need to have my app in production by the end/start of the year,
so we'll can check this with mine. For now it seems I need to left this
configuration or release version can pass the login (the mx RO call to the
server)
>
> -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%7C7aaabdc80b924afdbbec08d63220b6b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636751513415151449&sdata=UXVAkOWPShS5zniAvBY451D1Sle4tO0N9SkuIHMoFpQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C7aaabdc80b924afdbbec08d63220b6b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636751513415161450&sdata=BJw8cmfNcQoehyex3mO%2FGpWnzuTQavl5SaZ33gDyIXQ%3D&reserved=0
