Hi Josh, I think is a good idea. for now I'll put source maps for release mode as it was, and from there, at some time introduce that improvement. Thanks
El jue., 18 oct. 2018 a las 20:55, Josh Tynjala (<joshtynj...@apache.org>) escribió: > I mentioned to Carlos that he did not need to deploy the source maps in > js-release to production. I did not suggest that this feature should be > removed from the compiler. I agree that source maps for release builds are > useful in cases where you need to debug a release build to find out what > Closure compiler messed up. Perhaps they should only be generated if the > source-map compiler option is true, though, just like the source maps > generated in js-debug. > > - Josh > > On 2018/10/18 16:50:51, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > I did not realize source maps are gone. Please put them back in. There > were useful at times. I don't understand why they were removed. Can you > summarize the discussion? > > > > If I needed some design work and nobody volunteered to do it, I'm pretty > sure I could pay someone to do it who had no knowledge of Royale. But if > you want a code bug fixed, and I'm not available to do it, you could pay > someone to do it, but it will take them much longer to get familiar with > Royale. Also, IMO, design issues are found relatively early. Code bugs > are found just hours before some deadline. Your best insurance for being > able to deliver Royale-based apps to your clients on time is for you or > someone you hire to get really good at fixing bugs in the compiler and > ActionScript code. It is not a wise business decision to expect me to be > available. I keep getting the feeling that you think Adobe sees Royale as > a product like other Adobe products. It is not. Adobe is just generously > donating my work to the ASF. It does not currently matter to Adobe whether > Royale makes it as a product or not. I'm trying to make it matter to Adobe > by helping Flex customers migrate off of Flash in the browser. Because you > are essentially building out a new UI for a client, your work is not > overlapping with my goals as much. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 10/17/18, 4:08 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > HI Alex, > > > > El jue., 18 oct. 2018 a las 0:26, Alex Harui > (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > > escribió: > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > Well, that is my suggestion for how you can figure this out. In > theory, > > > there should be relatively few differences in js-debug and those > few > > > differences are likely to be the difference in the js-release > version. > > > > > > > > ok > > > > > > > Also, in theory, the source-maps work and running the js-release > in the > > > debugger should show where in the js-debug the exception is coming > from. > > > > > > > > There's no source-maps on release version, I talked about this with > Josh > > and point me that was not point in having source maps on release > version, > > so I removed in the compiler, since from that point of view was a > thing > > left undone when he did source maps. In fact debug is not working ok > and I > > asked Josh to solve the actual issues. > > > > > > > Hopefully your time budget considered that Royale is still beta > quality. > > > This is, hopefully, a relatively straightforward issue and having > more > > > people understand how to debug production code is a good thing for > the > > > community. It can't always be me. > > > > > > > Well, you know that sell a development to a final client is not as > easy as > > that. I tried to put in balance if the things needed to get the > project > > done was in place. I thought at that time that is true, since the > things > > still to be done are, dependent of my work on Jewel mostly (end > > DropDownList, create autocomplete bead for ComboBox,...), but things > like > > this was not considered since at that time this problem wasn't > exists. At > > the end, if I put on table all things that could be show stoppers, > we could > > end many months / years to start a real project, and I think that's > not > > real too. I consider the help of this community, since that kind of > things > > is what I'm finding as arguments inside my company to not go with > Royale. I > > think as you that I as many others here, must be self sufficient at > many > > levels. Taking into account that each one nature, make be more > capable in > > some aspects than in others. For example, I think I can ask you to > make > > more "designer" things in the website or in themes, since I think, > correct > > me if I'm wrong, is not in your skill set, but you can do something > of that > > kind in certain circumstances. I think this is the same. I can try > to do > > this, and will do, of course, but I think there's a certain amount of > > probabilities that I'm not successful in getting what is going > wrong. Hope > > I'll be wrong in my research...I'll let you know > > > > > > > > > > Good luck, > > > -Alex > > > > > > On 10/17/18, 11:19 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > one thing to take into account, you talk about to compare debug > > > versions, > > > but the problem is that debug versions works right, so I think > you'll > > > didn't find nothing related to the real problem there. > > > Thanks > > > > > > El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 17:48, Carlos Rovira (< > > > carlosrov...@apache.org>) > > > escribió: > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > do you want to send you a zip file with the js-debug > versions? > > > > In order to compare both je-relase versions, my problem is > that I > > > don't > > > > know what I must look for, so is difficult to see things. In > the > > > other > > > > hand, I'm spending lots of time in this kind of Debugging > what makes > > > me > > > > unable to work on the real project, and I'm starting to be > delayed... > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 17:19, Alex Harui > > > (<aha...@adobe.com.invalid>) > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > >> This may be a good opportunity for folks like you to > develop skills > > > at > > > >> debugging things like this. It won't scale if it is always > up to > > > me. > > > >> IMO, I would be comparing the un-minified source to see > what is > > > >> different. The release files are hard to read. > > > >> > > > >> -Alex > > > >> > > > >> On 10/17/18, 6:58 AM, "Carlos Rovira" < > carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Alex, > > > >> > > > >> testing with the test change to the same jewel code and > with > > > actual > > > >> repo > > > >> states fails in release mode as expected. So clearly > something > > > has > > > >> changed > > > >> this days that makes MX RO fail in release mode. > > > >> > > > >> Using DiffMerge to compare both release .js files shows > a clear > > > red > > > >> zone > > > >> where the significant differences exists. > > > >> > > > >> I posted both js files here > > > >> > > > >> [1] Day 14 - > > > >> > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2FtYEj&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc84986c31d5b44358ccc08d6348572b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636754145097109707&sdata=IvvKl0exMeuxQwNfS3YJ7nFNWi091eXtWVwk3bIeUtE%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> [2] Day 17 - > > > >> > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.apache.org%2FAcMa&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cc84986c31d5b44358ccc08d6348572b2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636754145097109707&sdata=4QeBZiH5iaMxzzvDXE0e7OwSpRVqRsv4qcaCCzxgf88%3D&reserved=0 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Could you check the files and see if you see something > > > relevant. I > > > >> don't > > > >> know how to look for. If you need the js files I can > send you in > > > >> email. > > > >> > > > >> Hope you find with this info the point of changes and > could > > > find some > > > >> solution so we get release mode working againg > > > >> > > > >> thanks > > > >> > > > >> Carlos > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 15:34, Carlos Rovira (< > > > >> carlosrov...@apache.org>) > > > >> escribió: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Alex, > > > >> > > > > >> > Going to repos state of Oct, 14th (last commit of > that day, in > > > >> compiler > > > >> > and framework, and in my project app repo as well), I > can > > > confirm > > > >> all > > > >> > worked on release more and communication with server > is ok > > > >> > > > > >> > for our mxroyale MX RO test: I can't get it to work in > > > release mode > > > >> either > > > >> > adding: > > > >> > > > > >> > debug false > > > >> > > > > >> > and > > > >> > > > > >> > -js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true > > > >> > > > > >> > or removing mx:method section that was not working > right at > > > that > > > >> time. > > > >> > > > > >> > Our test continue showing white browser screen and > the error: > > > >> > > > > >> > [Error] TypeError: undefined is not an object > (evaluating > > > >> 'a.length') > > > >> > ez (App.js:997:141) > > > >> > Vy (App.js:996:181) > > > >> > qm (App.js:970:266) > > > >> > qr (App.js:968:323) > > > >> > mq (App.js:239:887) > > > >> > R (App.js:166:1223) > > > >> > W (App.js:511:1288) > > > >> > mw (App.js:642:796) > > > >> > Dz (App.js:1044:726) > > > >> > create (App.js:908:164) > > > >> > start (App.js:909:229) > > > >> > Código global (index.html:13) > > > >> > > > > >> > So I suppose mx:Application and other implied MX > things in the > > > >> background > > > >> > are still not suited for release compilation. > > > >> > > > > >> > So after this, I changed localy all non MX RO > components to > > > Jewel, > > > >> and I > > > >> > get the test working in release mode > > > >> > Interesting thing here is that it worked without > setting > > > >> > -js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true > > > >> > So that indicates that MX RO seems does not need this > itself. > > > >> > > > > >> > Next thing is go to actual code, change the example > with the > > > same > > > >> Jewel > > > >> > code, compile, test and then compare outputs with > DiffMerge > > > to see > > > >> > differences. > > > >> > > > > >> > I'll write result as I get it > > > >> > > > > >> > Carlos > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > El mié., 17 oct. 2018 a las 10:15, Carlos Rovira (< > > > >> carlosrov...@apache.org>) > > > >> > escribió: > > > >> > > > > >> >> 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 norma -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
