Hi Alex, the compiler params I reported was not right, were from asconfig.json, but since I'm using maven I saw there was not setup anything, so I setup to :
<additionalCompilerOptions> -source-map=true;-js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true</ additionalCompilerOptions> And seems the output is still the same [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating 'a.length') hz (App.js:998:141) Yy (App.js:997:181) rm (App.js:971:266) tr (App.js:969:323) pq (App.js:239:887) R (App.js:166:1223) W (App.js:511:1288) pw (App.js:642:796) Gz (App.js:1045:726) create (App.js:908:164) start (App.js:909:229) Código global (index.html:13) Now, I'll try to go back in time to a previous commit where it works and compare with this output I'll get back with results Carlos El mar., 16 oct. 2018 a las 23:44, Alex Harui (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) escribió: > Ok. Let us know what you find out. I'm curious why you are not using > -js-dynamic-access. I thought that was at least a workaround. > > -Alex > > On 10/16/18, 2:36 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I'm starting with our simple MXRoyale RO text example and our Java > sample. > I just pushed a commit to easy change between the old example and the > new > MX RO test case, and enable RELEASE mode. When doing so and running it > doesn't work. this is the output > > [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating 'a.length') > hz (App.js:998:141) > Yy (App.js:997:181) > rm (App.js:971:266) > tr (App.js:969:323) > pq (App.js:239:887) > R (App.js:166:1223) > W (App.js:511:1288) > pw (App.js:642:796) > Gz (App.js:1045:726) > create (App.js:908:164) > start (App.js:909:229) > Código global (index.html:13) > > The additional compiler options are: > > "additionalOptions": "-remove-circulars > -js-output-optimization=skipAsCoercions", > > I must to close for today, but I think it will be more easy to debug > from > this example than from my real world app that has many other things > bundled. > > Thanks > > > El mar., 16 oct. 2018 a las 18:49, Alex Harui > (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > escribió: > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > Are you saying you can see that the response from the server was > received > > by XHR in the browser? > > > > I can't think of anything that I pushed yesterday that would affect > > response handling. IMO, the changes I made affected the call to > send(), > > but not the response handling. The other change would affect what > MXML > > elements were created. I guess you'll just have to debug into it. > > > > If it helps, there is a -skip-transpile option that is relatively > > untested, but causes the compiler to skip over any transpilation and > just > > run the Google Closure Compiler on the js-debug folder. This should > allow > > you to add trace statements (actually console.out) to the .JS files > in the > > js-debug folder and help you debug. If you are only modifying > framework > > files and not the application files, you don't even need > -skip-transpile, > > since the framework JS files from the SWC that are in js-debug are > not > > overwritten if they already exist. > > > > You could also revert back until you get a version that works, or > compare > > the current js-debug against working js-debug, if you still have a > working > > copy somewhere. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 10/16/18, 3:57 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi Alex > > > > It seems that latest changes makes MX RO not work in js-release > mode. > > If you remember I could by-pass this problem setting up > > -js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true > > compiling my Application, but now testing js-release it's not > working > > at > > all, since we are in release no traces are shown > > calling the operation in the backend just fails silenty. > > > > I only can say that call is done since I can see traces on my > java > > server, > > and enabling XHR in browser I can see the request is received > but in > > Royale > > nothing happens. I think this in an important issue (in the end > it > > will be > > blocking for me to go to production), do you know of something > done in > > the > > latest changes that could make this fail now? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 21:17, Carlos Rovira (< > > carlosrov...@apache.org>) > > escribió: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > with your latest fixes all is working ok :) > > > thanks! > > > > > > El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 20:12, Alex Harui > > (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > > > escribió: > > > > > >> Either syntax should work. I just pushed changes to > > AbstractService that > > >> got service.echo() to work. > > >> > > >> -Alex > > >> > > >> On 10/15/18, 10:51 AM, "Carlos Rovira" < > carlosrov...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Alex, > > >> > > >> one thing I not understand is that this: > > >> > > >> (service.echo as Operation).send(); > > >> > > >> should be > > >> > > >> service.echo() > > >> > > >> I think we're trying to remove "send()" and call directly > > "echo()" > > >> > > >> I can go to your latest commits in both compiler and > framework > > and > > >> try, but > > >> don't understand the purpose, since calling with send() > was > > what we > > >> had, > > >> right? > > >> > > >> Or maybe I'm missing something? > > >> > > >> thanks > > >> > > >> Carlos > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 19:15, Alex Harui > > >> (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > > >> escribió: > > >> > > >> > About 10 hours ago, after I cast the call to send in the > > example to > > >> be > > >> > (service.echo as Operation).send() , it worked for me. > > >> > > > >> > I see you have made several changes to the example > since. Go > > back > > >> to > > >> > where the example was about 10 hours ago, make that one > > change to > > >> > service.echo.send() and it should work. If other > things are > > not > > >> working, I > > >> > will look into them later. > > >> > > > >> > -Alex > > >> > > > >> > On 10/15/18, 10:11 AM, "Carlos Rovira" < > > carlosrov...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Alex, > > >> > > > >> > El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 18:54, Alex Harui > > >> > (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > > >> > escribió: > > >> > > > >> > > There may be a couple of things affecting you. > One is > > that > > >> in the > > >> > bug you > > >> > > reported, it looks like only the first RO is > created > > and the > > >> others > > >> > are not. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > I 'm pretty sure the bug about mx:method is not > present > > since I > > >> test > > >> > in my > > >> > real project and in the example in our repo. In the > first > > one I > > >> don't > > >> > have > > >> > any mx:method and in the second I comment to test. > Maybe > > we > > >> should > > >> > comment > > >> > mx:method section in the example for now. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Second, if you notice in the example, you'll see > things > > like > > >> > (service.echo > > >> > > as Operation).lastResult. After adding support > for > > >> callProperty, > > >> > the calls > > >> > > now have to change to be either (service.echo as > > >> Operation).send() or > > >> > > service.echo(). The current syntax in the repo: > > >> service.echo.send() > > >> > will > > >> > > result in an error because the compiler cannot > know if > > the > > >> echo > > >> > property on > > >> > > service is also a proxy or not. The compiler > currently > > >> guesses > > >> > "yes" to > > >> > > make it easier for folks who have existing nested > > ObjectProxy > > >> data > > >> > sets. > > >> > > So, Royale developers will have to do more > "casting" > > with > > >> "as" than > > >> > in > > >> > > Flash. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > check the example since I change already to the new > > syntax to > > >> help you > > >> > try > > >> > it. There's no "send()" anymore in the example in > our > > repo. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > In Flash, the difference between proxy access and > > regular > > >> property > > >> > access > > >> > > is handled in the runtime. The JS runtimes do > not do > > this. > > >> The > > >> > compiler > > >> > > could generate code that tests the class at > runtime, > > but I > > >> think > > >> > that will > > >> > > be too slow. > > >> > > > > >> > > Specific to RemoteObject, it might be possible to > > declare the > > >> JS > > >> > > RemoteObject to not be a Proxy and just Dynamic > and > > have the > > >> > constructor > > >> > > and getOperation call Object.defineProperty, but > that > > is not a > > >> > general case > > >> > > solution for Proxy. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Alex, that's for me a bit far from my knowledge. > I'm > > sure > > >> whatever > > >> > you > > >> > get would be the best solution. > > >> > Currently mx:RO is broken and I'm working with the > repo > > just > > >> before the > > >> > change localy to advance, hope you could take a > look and > > see if > > >> you > > >> > can fix > > >> > the issue. > > >> > If not, probably is better to comment the changes > in the > > >> compiler (and > > >> > maybe in the framework?) to make it work again > until we > > know > > >> how to > > >> > fix it. > > >> > > > >> > One thing I could test today (not related) in the > > meanwhile is > > >> if mx:RO > > >> > works with small messages on. The response is not, I > > think that > > >> is the > > >> > AMF > > >> > serialization-deserialization. But I think this is > not > > crucial, > > >> just > > >> > disabling it could be ok for now for most of folks > out > > there > > >> (just > > >> > knowing > > >> > that they need to configure that to false). > > >> > > > >> > Thanks > > >> > > > >> > Carlos > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > My 2 cents, > > >> > > -Alex > > >> > > > > >> > > On 10/15/18, 4:51 AM, "Carlos Rovira" < > > >> carlosrov...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Alex, > > >> > > > > >> > > I added to the RO test example the > CompressedRO > > test case > > >> > commented to > > >> > > help > > >> > > you find the problem. > > >> > > I couldn't test like in net RO since now the > entire > > >> example is > > >> > > failing, but > > >> > > once the callProperty works for a normal case > > should help > > >> us to > > >> > check > > >> > > if > > >> > > the rest of RO works since it uses > > >> "convertParametersHandler" > > >> > > > > >> > > I'll revert localy this changes in order to > advance > > in my > > >> real > > >> > world > > >> > > app in > > >> > > the mean while > > >> > > > > >> > > thanks > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 13:40, Carlos > Rovira (< > > >> > > carlosrov...@apache.org>) > > >> > > escribió: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Alex, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I found that even if I remove completely > > >> > CompressedRemoteObject and > > >> > > use > > >> > > > only normal mx:RemoteObject the error shows: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an > object > > >> (evaluating > > >> > > > > 'this.remoteObject.convertParametersHandler') > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 13:00, Carlos > Rovira > > (< > > >> > > carlosrov...@apache.org>) > > >> > > > escribió: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> Hi Alex, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm finding a problem with callProperty. > I'm > > using a > > >> > > >> CompressedRemoteObjeect that uses two > hooks in > > >> RemoteObject > > >> > API > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> public var > convertParametersHandler:Function; > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >> public var convertResultHandler:Function; > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> this makes the call fail with > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an > object > > >> (evaluating > > >> > > >> > 'this.remoteObject.convertParametersHandler') > > >> > > >> send (Operation.js:109) > > >> > > >> callProperty (AbstractService.js:147:111) > > >> > > >> dologin (LoginForm.js:181) > > >> > > >> $EH1 (LoginForm.js:226) > > >> > > >> (función anónima) > > >> > > >> fireListener (events.js:744) > > >> > > >> fireListenerOverride > (HTMLElementWrapper.js:61) > > >> > > >> handleBrowserEvent_ (events.js:870) > > >> > > >> (función anónima) (events.js:289) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> So I guess the proxy is trying to proxy > all even > > its > > >> own > > >> > member > > >> > > functions > > >> > > >> that should not be affected, makes this > sense? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> thanks > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> El lun., 15 oct. 2018 a las 7:15, Alex > Harui > > >> > > (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > > >> > > >> escribió: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> 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%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> -- > > >> > > >>> Carlos Rovira > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Carlos Rovira > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Carlos Rovira > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Carlos Rovira > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Carlos Rovira > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Carlos Rovira > > >> > > >> > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104890710&sdata=fxQa4zktHZekw9sqzbJDmYhG7smZ6uKBbjpLbPPHLvQ%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104900709&sdata=PqEdmzLveMAyzsSu5ix7vQj%2BeRzj80fxeb18WD5q7Cc%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C15634d41d3284235c0e308d633af7aaa%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636753226104900709&sdata=PqEdmzLveMAyzsSu5ix7vQj%2BeRzj80fxeb18WD5q7Cc%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
