Sounds good to me.
On 2008-11-16, at 09:27EST, Henry Minsky wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Donald Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Henry,
I like having the boilerplate code being passed in.
There's a TODO there to that effect. Do you plan to pass
the whole boilerplate or separate out into:
Name of main class
Name of class (if any) to extend
extra boilerplate code
Probably we should pass in both the class name and the boilerplate
string. The class name is needed to tell the flex compiler the main
class name, and the
boilerplate might as well be hand constructed for maximum flexibility.
Either way, it's a good plan.
- Don
On Nov 16, 2008, at 12:29 AM, Henry Minsky wrote:
For the work on loadable libraries, I need to make the SWF9Generator
emit a different "application" class. I don't want to subclass
LFCApplication, but to make a subclass of a different class,
LFCLibrary.
At one point I shoehorned in a special case for making it compile a
different application class, when compiling eval expressions
it emits a "DebugEvaluate" class. That's in the
"SWF9Generator.preProcess" method. But that code is kind of wedged
in
there in an ugly way, and I'd like to make this more clean, so maybe
the tag compiler should be passing in the information as to what the
name of the AS3 main application class is, rather than
having it hardcoded into the script compiler SWF9 generator code.
The code in SWF9Generator for generating the LFC .swc ought to be
left
as is for now I guess.
But for the main app, loadable libraries, and the debug-eval hack,
maybe we could pass in a string in the properties object when we call
ScriptCompiler.compileToByteArray, which would be the boilerplate to
use,
instead of having it hardcoded into the preProcess method. Maybe we
could name this as a scriptcompiler property
"preprocess-boilerplate".
--
Don Anderson
Java/C/C++, Berkeley DB, systems consultant
voice: 617-547-7881
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.ddanderson.com
--
Henry Minsky
Software Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
