Unfortunately that was the first thing I tried :-(
Chris
________________________________
Von: Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. August 2020 18:01
An: Apache Royale Development <dev@royale.apache.org>
Betreff: Re: Something's not working right ...
Chris,
Maybe you need to add to your dependencies:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.royale.framework</groupId>
<artifactId>Language</artifactId>
<version>0.9.8-SNAPSHOT</version>
<type>swc</type>
<classifier>js</classifier>
</dependency>
Thanks,
Piotr
pt., 14 sie 2020 o 17:59 Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
napisał(a):
> Hi Harbs,
>
> ok ... I read about the allow-private-constructors switch, but in the blog
> post I read it stated to be on per default.
> But I could definitely give it a try. Thanks.
>
> And the getQualifiedClassName I had even without the private constructors
> ... when enabling the different parts I had the constructors public but
> even then, as soon as I used getQualifiedClassName anywhere, I got the
> error of not finding "Language".
>
> I've postponed figuring this out but definitely will give your compiler
> switches a try.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> Am 14.08.20, 17:03 schrieb "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Make the private constructors work
>
> Use -allow-private-constructors=true
>
> Here is some of the options I have in my asconfigc file (where I’m
> using private constructors):
> "additionalOptions": "-js-output-optimization=skipAsCoercions
> -js-dynamic-access-unknown-members=true -allow-private-constructors=true
> -js-complex-implicit-coercions=false -js-vector-index-checks=false"
>
> FWIW, I find asconfigc by far the easiest way to define the options
> for building projects.
>
> > 2) Make the getQualifiedClassName work
>
> No idea why this is not working for you. I’m definitely using
> getQualifiedClassName, but I don’t know if I used it with private
> constructors, so there might be an issue with that. Maybe resolving #1 will
> fix #2?
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
