My idea wasn't quite that. It was to write the injection in JS instead of
HTML. Here's a current inject_html from dialogPolyfill.as
/**
* <inject_html>
* <script
src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dialog-polyfill/0.4.9/dialog-polyfill.min.js";></script>
* <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
href="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dialog-polyfill/0.4.9/dialog-polyfill.min.css";>
* </inject_html>
*/
I think if it was rewritten as:
/**
* <inject_script>
* var script = document.createElement("script");
* script.setAttribute("src",
"https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dialog-polyfill/0.4.9/dialog-polyfill.min.js";);
* document.head.appendChild(script)
* var link = document.createElement("link");
* link.setAttribute("rel", "stylesheet");
* link.setAttribute("type", "text/css");
* link.setAttribute("href",
"https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/dialog-polyfill/0.4.9/dialog-polyfill.min.css";);
* document.head.appendChild(link);
* </inject_script>
*/
Then all the compiler needs to do is copy that JS into the appropriate file. I
suppose we could always prepend it to the .js file, but I think if we wanted we
could inject it into the html wrapper by copying the entire contents in between
<script></script> tags.
The compiler would not have to parse anything, just copy like it currently
does. We would have to go and re-write all of the current inject_htmls,
although, as I said earlier, I think many inject_htmls should be replaced by
other mechanism like static initializers. The real need for
inject_html/inject_script is to make sure some external dependency has been
loaded so a class can initialize (as the various clss.prototype.foo get
interpreted). If the class just needs the dependency at runtime, load it later
in the code for the class. That makes it more PAYG as well.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
On 5/11/20, 9:18 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I guess I could add
<inject_script src=””/> and <inject_link href=””/> syntax which would be
easier to parse and then transpile that, similar to how it’s done today. Before
I go too crazy though, can someone remind me why outerHTML is evil?
Thanks.
From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:00 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Modules in IE
>What if we abandon "inject_html" and go with "inject_script" instead?
Then when adding to the html output, each >script would be wrapped with a
<script> tag, but for modules the code could be added to the main module .js
file.
I’m not sure about this. I think typically you inject a <link href=”x”> for
css and a <script src=”y”> for the js. How do you propose to add those to the
module js?
On 5/11/20, 8:36 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Carlos, thanks. The issue is with inject_html in modules on IE,
dialogPolyfill.js just happened to be the target src here. I’ve been searching
the net for solutions on IE and I think the trick is to append elements instead
of changing the inner html. I see two options of transpiling <inject_html> that
would work on IE:
1. Parse the <inject_html> contents in the compiler and create js
that would work for IE. Difficult.
2. Replace each line in <inject_html> with dummy elements and change
their outerHTML to match each line contents. This one looks easier, but I seem
to remember a thread where we were trying to eliminate use of outerHTML.
Any thoughts are welcome.
From: Carlos Rovira<mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:06 PM
To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Modules in IE
Hi Yishay,
talking without a huge analisys of the problem. I think Jewel Alert
works
ok in IE11 so that should mean dialogpolyfil is loading ok. if not the
case
something broke recently since I checked that in TDJ and other apps we
did.
Anyway, the commit you state is just to give the support we needed. I
didn't tested in IE11, so don't know if we support it. Normally IE11
use to
require
some special way of writing the code for some particular things, so I
think
the way to solve this is:
1.- search in SOF or other sources how IE11 expect scripts to be added
dynamically
2.- upgrade the compiler code to use that way with that considerations
to
make it IE11 compatible and check if that works for IE11 and rest of
browsers.
sorry to not be able to say much more, but I'm these days with few time
Thanks
El lun., 11 may. 2020 a las 16:12, Yishay Weiss
(<yishayj...@hotmail.com>)
escribió:
> Carols, I think 65c67ee27f8d0d068b3e2163445d48cf200cddc3 in compiler
code
> doesn’t work for IE11. Any ideas on how to fix this?
>
> From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:52 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Modules in IE
>
> These lines in dialogPolyfill.as
>
> * <inject_html>
> * <script src="
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324237150&sdata=mXiJMCztzMYBH6D6LM0%2Bdv2m4gFmFAoqpC%2FTVmjbn8g%3D&reserved=0
> "></script>
>
> get transpiled to
>
> document.head.innerHTML += '<script src="
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324237150&sdata=mXiJMCztzMYBH6D6LM0%2Bdv2m4gFmFAoqpC%2FTVmjbn8g%3D&reserved=0
> "></script>'
>
> But that’s making IE11 fail in loading the module. It doesn’t matter
what
> the src is, IE will silently fail. For example, I’m getting the same
result
> if I replace the above with
>
> document.head.innerHTML += '<script></script>'
>
>
>
>
> From: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 7:35:55 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Does dialog-polyfill load correctly? Does it muck with the window
object?
>
> On 5/10/20, 9:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Test1.js isn’t different, but Test1_deps.js is.
>
> diff --git "a/.\\dir_with_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> "b/.\\dir_without_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> index 73eccbe..3e1a8a7 100644
> --- "a/.\\dir_with_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> +++ "b/.\\dir_without_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> @@ -211,4 +211,4 @@
>
goog.addDependency('../../../org/apache/royale/graphics/GradientEntry.js',
> ['org
> goog.addDependency('../../../XML.js', ['XML'], []);
>
> goog.require('Test1');
> -document.head.innerHTML += '<script src="
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324237150&sdata=mXiJMCztzMYBH6D6LM0%2Bdv2m4gFmFAoqpC%2FTVmjbn8g%3D&reserved=0
> "></script<
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324237150&sdata=mXiJMCztzMYBH6D6LM0%2Bdv2m4gFmFAoqpC%2FTVmjbn8g%3D&reserved=0
> >>';document.head.innerHTM
> L += '<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.css&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324247118&sdata=AiwgqYg2zTmgRs%2BzC3B82UOeIyedm9L6%2BS6%2FzkGKL0A%3D&reserved=0
> ">';
> +
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 6:39 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Interesting. Just adding import shouldn't affect the output.
What is
> the difference between Test1.js with and without that import
statement?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/10/20, 8:31 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I’ve narrowed it down to usage of mx.controls.Alert. Test
case is
> included in this issue [1].
>
> [1]
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues%2F826&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324247118&sdata=5XnYhvhgfJsonuIf0fHF%2FSSEDbgiow1Tbh345oQ7aC0%3D&reserved=0
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 10:35 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> I think you can verify by debugging in some other browser and
see
> if breakpoints get set.
>
> A common “bug” in Flex modules was to reference and link the
> module class into the loading app. I have no idea what will happen
if you
> have such a situation in Royale. You can look at the loading app’s
> link-report to see if the module (Test1) is linked in the app and
probably
> see if Test1.js is in the output of the app if you start clean and do
not
> compile the module.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> From: Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@royale.apache.org" <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> To: "dev@royale.apache.org" <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Modules in IE
>
> url is
>
>
file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/library/closure/goog/../../../Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js>>>>>
>
> I don’t see errors other than
>
> SEC7113: CSS was ignored due to mime type mismatch
>
> But I don’t think that’s it.
>
> I put a debugger; statement on the first line of the src which
> never kicks.
>
>
> From: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 7:58:15 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> What is the src (url) for that script? Were there any errors
> loading and running it? Are the other Royale packages/classes in the
> "window" object?
>
> One scenario I thought of is that some bug or something else
> creates a "window" property at the global window causing our package
lookup
> to be off.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/6/20, 8:47 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> In my example <script> element is there but it’s never
loaded
> on IE. I can confirm ModuleExamle works.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 9:31 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> I just ran examples/royale/ModuleExample in IE and it
worked.
> Does it work for you?
> In the debugger, window.Module and window.MainApp resolve
to
> functions. window.org is an object with an apache property.
> In the DOM Explorer, there should be tons of <script>
tags in
> the head. Near the end of the list should be the script for the .js
file
> for the module.
> Do you see any exceptions? ModuleExample works without
errors.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/2/20, 11:01 AM, "Yishay Weiss"
<yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I suppose that’s what
>
> if (window[moduleName] == null) is checking
>
> The problem is that window[moduleName] never shows
up. On
> Chrome it does.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:29 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Is this js-debug or js-release? Did the deps file
load?
> Did other definitions get created? If js-debug, there should be new
> definitions showing up in the global/window object. IOW, if the main
app
> didn't have a DataGrid and the module did, the mx.controls.DataGrid
should
> make an appearance as the deps are loaded and evaluated.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/29/20, 8:19 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, it works on Chrome and FF.
> window[this.modulename] is undefined. Didn’t check what happens in
other
> browsers.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:00 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> This is IE specific? It works in other browers?
What
> does window[modulename] return?
>
> On 4/29/20, 1:41 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this work?
>
> To me it’s stuck in UIModuleUtils in
>
> COMPILE::JS
> protected function
loadDepsHandler():void
> {
> // wait for other scripts to load
> if (window[moduleName] == null)
> {
> setTimeout(loadDepsHandler,
250);
> }
> else
> loadHandler();
>
> }
> Window[moduleName] is never not null.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> What is the src (url) for that script? Were there any errors
> loading and running it? Are the other Royale packages/classes in the
> "window" object?
>
> One scenario I thought of is that some bug or something else
> creates a "window" property at the global window causing our package
lookup
> to be off.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/6/20, 8:47 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> In my example <script> element is there but it’s never
loaded
> on IE. I can confirm ModuleExamle works.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 9:31 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> I just ran examples/royale/ModuleExample in IE and it
worked.
> Does it work for you?
> In the debugger, window.Module and window.MainApp resolve
to
> functions. window.org is an object with an apache property.
> In the DOM Explorer, there should be tons of <script>
tags in
> the head. Near the end of the list should be the script for the .js
file
> for the module.
> Do you see any exceptions? ModuleExample works without
errors.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/2/20, 11:01 AM, "Yishay Weiss"
<yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I suppose that’s what
>
> if (window[moduleName] == null) is checking
>
> The problem is that window[moduleName] never shows
up. On
> Chrome it does.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:29 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Is this js-debug or js-release? Did the deps file
load?
> Did other definitions get created? If js-debug, there should be new
> definitions showing up in the global/window object. IOW, if the main
app
> didn't have a DataGrid and the module did, the mx.controls.DataGrid
should
> make an appearance as the deps are loaded and evaluated.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/29/20, 8:19 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, it works on Chrome and FF.
> window[this.modulename] is undefined. Didn’t check what happens in
other
> browsers.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:00 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> This is IE specific? It works in other browers?
What
> does window[modulename] return?
>
> On 4/29/20, 1:41 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this work?
>
> To me it’s stuck in UIModuleUtils in
>
> COMPILE::JS
> protected function
loadDepsHandler():void
> {
> // wait for other scripts to load
> if (window[moduleName] == null)
> {
> setTimeout(loadDepsHandler,
250);
> }
> else
> loadHandler();
>
> }
> Window[moduleName] is never not null.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Does dialog-polyfill load correctly? Does it muck with the window
object?
>
> On 5/10/20, 9:13 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Test1.js isn’t different, but Test1_deps.js is.
>
> diff --git "a/.\\dir_with_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> "b/.\\dir_without_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> index 73eccbe..3e1a8a7 100644
> --- "a/.\\dir_with_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> +++ "b/.\\dir_without_import\\/js-debug/Test1__deps.js"
> @@ -211,4 +211,4 @@
>
goog.addDependency('../../../org/apache/royale/graphics/GradientEntry.js',
> ['org
> goog.addDependency('../../../XML.js', ['XML'], []);
>
> goog.require('Test1');
> -document.head.innerHTML += '<script src="
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324247118&sdata=B8KlNfzVS6I6U8V%2Bj6EOYDSjsxWPpuhGJ98XYfi%2ByEM%3D&reserved=0
> "></script<
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.js&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324247118&sdata=B8KlNfzVS6I6U8V%2Bj6EOYDSjsxWPpuhGJ98XYfi%2ByEM%3D&reserved=0
> >>';document.head.innerHTM
> L += '<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnjs.cloudflare.com%2Fajax%2Flibs%2Fdialog-polyfill%2F0.4.9%2Fdialog-polyfill.min.css&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324247118&sdata=AiwgqYg2zTmgRs%2BzC3B82UOeIyedm9L6%2BS6%2FzkGKL0A%3D&reserved=0
> ">';
> +
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 6:39 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Interesting. Just adding import shouldn't affect the output.
What is
> the difference between Test1.js with and without that import
statement?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/10/20, 8:31 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I’ve narrowed it down to usage of mx.controls.Alert. Test
case is
> included in this issue [1].
>
> [1]
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fissues%2F826&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324247118&sdata=5XnYhvhgfJsonuIf0fHF%2FSSEDbgiow1Tbh345oQ7aC0%3D&reserved=0
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 10:35 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> I think you can verify by debugging in some other browser and
see
> if breakpoints get set.
>
> A common “bug” in Flex modules was to reference and link the
> module class into the loading app. I have no idea what will happen
if you
> have such a situation in Royale. You can look at the loading app’s
> link-report to see if the module (Test1) is linked in the app and
probably
> see if Test1.js is in the output of the app if you start clean and do
not
> compile the module.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> From: Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: "dev@royale.apache.org" <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> To: "dev@royale.apache.org" <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Modules in IE
>
> url is
>
>
file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/library/closure/goog/../../../Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js<file:///C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js%3cfile:/C:/dev/RoyaleComponentTest/NewComponentTest/bin/js-debug/Test1.js>>>>>
>
> I don’t see errors other than
>
> SEC7113: CSS was ignored due to mime type mismatch
>
> But I don’t think that’s it.
>
> I put a debugger; statement on the first line of the src which
> never kicks.
>
>
> From: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 7:58:15 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org <dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> What is the src (url) for that script? Were there any errors
> loading and running it? Are the other Royale packages/classes in the
> "window" object?
>
> One scenario I thought of is that some bug or something else
> creates a "window" property at the global window causing our package
lookup
> to be off.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/6/20, 8:47 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> In my example <script> element is there but it’s never
loaded
> on IE. I can confirm ModuleExamle works.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 9:31 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> I just ran examples/royale/ModuleExample in IE and it
worked.
> Does it work for you?
> In the debugger, window.Module and window.MainApp resolve
to
> functions. window.org is an object with an apache property.
> In the DOM Explorer, there should be tons of <script>
tags in
> the head. Near the end of the list should be the script for the .js
file
> for the module.
> Do you see any exceptions? ModuleExample works without
errors.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/2/20, 11:01 AM, "Yishay Weiss"
<yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I suppose that’s what
>
> if (window[moduleName] == null) is checking
>
> The problem is that window[moduleName] never shows
up. On
> Chrome it does.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:29 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Is this js-debug or js-release? Did the deps file
load?
> Did other definitions get created? If js-debug, there should be new
> definitions showing up in the global/window object. IOW, if the main
app
> didn't have a DataGrid and the module did, the mx.controls.DataGrid
should
> make an appearance as the deps are loaded and evaluated.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/29/20, 8:19 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, it works on Chrome and FF.
> window[this.modulename] is undefined. Didn’t check what happens in
other
> browsers.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:00 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> This is IE specific? It works in other browers?
What
> does window[modulename] return?
>
> On 4/29/20, 1:41 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this work?
>
> To me it’s stuck in UIModuleUtils in
>
> COMPILE::JS
> protected function
loadDepsHandler():void
> {
> // wait for other scripts to load
> if (window[moduleName] == null)
> {
> setTimeout(loadDepsHandler,
250);
> }
> else
> loadHandler();
>
> }
> Window[moduleName] is never not null.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> What is the src (url) for that script? Were there any errors
> loading and running it? Are the other Royale packages/classes in the
> "window" object?
>
> One scenario I thought of is that some bug or something else
> creates a "window" property at the global window causing our package
lookup
> to be off.
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
> On 5/6/20, 8:47 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> In my example <script> element is there but it’s never
loaded
> on IE. I can confirm ModuleExamle works.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 9:31 AM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> I just ran examples/royale/ModuleExample in IE and it
worked.
> Does it work for you?
> In the debugger, window.Module and window.MainApp resolve
to
> functions. window.org is an object with an apache property.
> In the DOM Explorer, there should be tons of <script>
tags in
> the head. Near the end of the list should be the script for the .js
file
> for the module.
> Do you see any exceptions? ModuleExample works without
errors.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 5/2/20, 11:01 AM, "Yishay Weiss"
<yishayj...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I suppose that’s what
>
> if (window[moduleName] == null) is checking
>
> The problem is that window[moduleName] never shows
up. On
> Chrome it does.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 6:29 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> Is this js-debug or js-release? Did the deps file
load?
> Did other definitions get created? If js-debug, there should be new
> definitions showing up in the global/window object. IOW, if the main
app
> didn't have a DataGrid and the module did, the mx.controls.DataGrid
should
> make an appearance as the deps are loaded and evaluated.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/29/20, 8:19 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, it works on Chrome and FF.
> window[this.modulename] is undefined. Didn’t check what happens in
other
> browsers.
>
> From: Alex Harui<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:00 AM
> To:
dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> >
> Subject: Re: Modules in IE
>
> This is IE specific? It works in other browers?
What
> does window[modulename] return?
>
> On 4/29/20, 1:41 PM, "Yishay Weiss" <
> yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this work?
>
> To me it’s stuck in UIModuleUtils in
>
> COMPILE::JS
> protected function
loadDepsHandler():void
> {
> // wait for other scripts to load
> if (window[moduleName] == null)
> {
> setTimeout(loadDepsHandler,
250);
> }
> else
> loadHandler();
>
> }
> Window[moduleName] is never not null.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C1a29cea822264af04d9e08d7f5c6fd7b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637248107324247118&sdata=oEuPO1QRYw31eRbzyd%2Bzqf1zHAH%2FUBX5B41zvuq8ZQs%3D&reserved=0
