Hi Kenny, thanks for joining the discussion, I just reverse the commits that remove source maps on release Want do you think about work on that change and submit a PR? I could revise it
Thanks Carlos El vie., 19 oct. 2018 a las 16:12, Kenny Lerma (<ke...@kennylerma.com>) escribió: > Just my 2 cents, but I agree that the -source-map compiler flag should > decide if they are generated or not in release builds. > > Kenny > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:55 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > 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 > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
