As opposed to straight javascript? Maybe we should write both? It might be easier for people to debug if it were plaintext...
On 6/16/07, P T Withington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Might as well make it use the binary library path for writing it out? On 2007-06-16, at 19:16 EDT, Henry Minsky wrote: > OKay, I will make something that writes a .js file in the usual place > (build/appname/libname.js) > > > > On 6/16/07, Max Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Well, we've had a couple of folks say this is very important to >> them. I >> say we go ahead and implement something. Henry, if you'll do the >> server >> bits, I'll do the client! >> >> -Max >> >> Henry Minsky wrote: >> > What say Jim about this? >> > >> > I think that technically it's not too difficult, it's just the >> devil in >> the >> > details as usual. I am thinking a clone of the current swf library >> writing >> > routines will be straightforward, since we only have to compile >> and >> write >> > out script code, >> > we don't need to worry about all the font and other resource >> code that >> the >> > swf >> > code path does. >> > >> > For loading, we need to implement a loader which uses the DHTML >> script >> > loading >> > mechanism, which Max already provided a sample code snippet for >> at one >> > point. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 6/15/07, Max Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Inquiring minds want to know. Please post your reply here also: >> >> http://forum.openlaszlo.org/showthread.php?t=9550 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Max Carlson >> >> OpenLaszlo.org >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Max Carlson >> OpenLaszlo.org >> > > > > -- > Henry Minsky > Software Architect > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Henry Minsky Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
