Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Are the contents of build.number correct? #Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation. #Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:23:00 +1000 build.number=0 Ignoring the incorrect dates, should the build.number be 0? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Just trying to run the approve script. I get a failure while building. The 'packageair' step is looking for NOTICE in the 'installer' subdirectory, where it isn't. It seems to be in the root. Also I noticed that running the approve script that it doesn't check the PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME variable before starting, causing the build to just fail when it isn't. EdB On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > This is the discussion thread. > > Thanks, > Alex Harui > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, The source release (.tar.gz) has a unexpected binary file inside it, so looks like there will need to be another RC. But I’ll do a full review before voting and see if there is anything else we need to fix as well. Here’s the file: ant_on_air/tests/OSMF2_0.swc Thanks, Justin
[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
This is the discussion thread. Thanks, Alex Harui
[VOTE] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Please vote to approve Apache Flex SDK Installer version 3.2 to be released. The source distributions for Windows and Mac are available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/installer/3.2/rc1/ The binary distributions as a convenience for the respective platforms, are available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/installer/3.2/rc1/binaries As agreed, there are no Linux binaries for this version. Before voting please review the sections: What are the ASF requirements on approving a release? at http://www.apache.org/dev/ and approving a release at http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release For your convenience, there is an Ant script in the RC folder that automates the checks a voter should perform on the RC. It will: - download the default source package for your OS (use -Dpackage.suffix to override) - run md5 and gpg checks (this assumes you have gpg installed in your path) - uncompress the source package - install and run rat - display the rat report and ask you to verify - display the rat report without the AL files and ask you to verify the non-AL files - display the README and ask you to verify - display the RELEASE_NOTES and ask you to verify - display the NOTICE and ask you to verify - display the LICENSE and ask you to verify - run the build and any tests run by the build. You should be able to go away for a while during the build. When it is finished, it will display information to be copied into the vote thread. You are not required to use this script, and more testing of the packages and build results are always encouraged. To use this script (assuming you have Ant installed), it should be as simple as: - Create an empty folder - Download ApproveInstaller.xml into that folder from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/installer/3.2/rc1/ApproveInstal ler.xml - Run: ant -e -f ApproveInstaller.xml -Drelease.version=3.2 -Drc=1 Vote [ ] +1 Approve the release [ ] -1 Veto the release (please provide specific comments) This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Thanks, Alex Harui
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
Alex, Jira filled -> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34892 Thanks, Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW-AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47945.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
That's funny, I was playing with JS.swc and wanted to start doing things with svg too but didn't find any of its classes, so, I was about to use CanvasRenderingContext2D but seen our components are done using svg, I returned on my email to ask about svg in JS.swc and realized it wasn't updated, refreshed and seen your very great example Om. I won't do better, at least for tonight, will anyway test quickly your new JS.swc version Mike. Thanks, Frédéric THOMAS > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions > Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:40:24 + > > Sweet! > > On 6/17/15, 5:31 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: > >>It works for the most part! At some point, the code completion stopped >>working. I am not able to get it back now. >> >>But, the good news, here is an interactive US built completely in >>ActionScript3! >> >>Working demo: http://bigosmallm.github.io/flexjs/mapexample/ >>AS3 code: https://gist.github.com/bigosmallm/824147f7c439c584a09b >>JS code: Who cares? ;-) >> >>I will spend some more time building something nicer over the next day or >>so. >> >>Thanks, >>Om >> >>On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:53 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala >> >>wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Michael Schmalle < >>> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Well I got it to compile on one condition. I had to turn on the emit props and methods for the interfaces. The actual classes themselves have all the definitions. There are major conflicts with the SVG* interfaces and some base stuff. Example; Element.style is CSSStyleDeclaration, in SVG it redeclares this on SVGStylable as a different type. So Om, I compiled the SWC and just put it on my server for you to try, before I commit anything, you need to see if it works the way you need. http://www.teotigraphix.com/assets/JS.swc >>> Great! I am on it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Om >>> >>> Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > >>Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has >>10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes >>transformed to get/set. > > I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I only > saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls take > multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do the > transformation? > > If you can get this file to convert to AS even procedurally, I’ll find a > way to get it into the build and JS.swc. > >> >>Who thinks I can do this? Haha > > If there is anyone who can do it, it would be you ;-) > > -Alex > > >>> >>> >
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
Sweet! On 6/17/15, 5:31 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >It works for the most part! At some point, the code completion stopped >working. I am not able to get it back now. > >But, the good news, here is an interactive US built completely in >ActionScript3! > >Working demo: http://bigosmallm.github.io/flexjs/mapexample/ >AS3 code: https://gist.github.com/bigosmallm/824147f7c439c584a09b >JS code: Who cares? ;-) > >I will spend some more time building something nicer over the next day or >so. > >Thanks, >Om > >On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:53 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala > >wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Michael Schmalle < >> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Well I got it to compile on one condition. I had to turn on the emit >>>props >>> and methods for the interfaces. >>> >>> The actual classes themselves have all the definitions. There are major >>> conflicts with the SVG* interfaces and some base stuff. >>> >>> Example; Element.style is CSSStyleDeclaration, in SVG it redeclares >>>this >>> on >>> SVGStylable as a different type. >>> >>> So Om, I compiled the SWC and just put it on my server for you to try, >>> before I commit anything, you need to see if it works the way you need. >>> >>> http://www.teotigraphix.com/assets/JS.swc >>> >>> >> Great! I am on it. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and >>>has >>> > >10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their >>>prototypes >>> > >transformed to get/set. >>> > >>> > I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I >>> only >>> > saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls >>> take >>> > multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do >>>the >>> > transformation? >>> > >>> > If you can get this file to convert to AS even procedurally, I’ll >>>find a >>> > way to get it into the build and JS.swc. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >Who thinks I can do this? Haha >>> > >>> > If there is anyone who can do it, it would be you ;-) >>> > >>> > -Alex >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
It works for the most part! At some point, the code completion stopped working. I am not able to get it back now. But, the good news, here is an interactive US built completely in ActionScript3! Working demo: http://bigosmallm.github.io/flexjs/mapexample/ AS3 code: https://gist.github.com/bigosmallm/824147f7c439c584a09b JS code: Who cares? ;-) I will spend some more time building something nicer over the next day or so. Thanks, Om On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:53 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well I got it to compile on one condition. I had to turn on the emit props >> and methods for the interfaces. >> >> The actual classes themselves have all the definitions. There are major >> conflicts with the SVG* interfaces and some base stuff. >> >> Example; Element.style is CSSStyleDeclaration, in SVG it redeclares this >> on >> SVGStylable as a different type. >> >> So Om, I compiled the SWC and just put it on my server for you to try, >> before I commit anything, you need to see if it works the way you need. >> >> http://www.teotigraphix.com/assets/JS.swc >> >> > Great! I am on it. > > Thanks, > Om > > >> Mike >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" >> wrote: >> > >> > >Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has >> > >10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes >> > >transformed to get/set. >> > >> > I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I >> only >> > saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls >> take >> > multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do the >> > transformation? >> > >> > If you can get this file to convert to AS even procedurally, I’ll find a >> > way to get it into the build and JS.swc. >> > >> > > >> > >Who thinks I can do this? Haha >> > >> > If there is anyone who can do it, it would be you ;-) >> > >> > -Alex >> > >> > >> > >
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote: > Well I got it to compile on one condition. I had to turn on the emit props > and methods for the interfaces. > > The actual classes themselves have all the definitions. There are major > conflicts with the SVG* interfaces and some base stuff. > > Example; Element.style is CSSStyleDeclaration, in SVG it redeclares this on > SVGStylable as a different type. > > So Om, I compiled the SWC and just put it on my server for you to try, > before I commit anything, you need to see if it works the way you need. > > http://www.teotigraphix.com/assets/JS.swc > > Great! I am on it. Thanks, Om > Mike > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" > wrote: > > > > >Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has > > >10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes > > >transformed to get/set. > > > > I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I > only > > saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls > take > > multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do the > > transformation? > > > > If you can get this file to convert to AS even procedurally, I’ll find a > > way to get it into the build and JS.swc. > > > > > > > >Who thinks I can do this? Haha > > > > If there is anyone who can do it, it would be you ;-) > > > > -Alex > > > > >
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
On 6/17/15, 3:22 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: >On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" >>wrote: >> >> >Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has >> >10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes >> >transformed to get/set. >> >> I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I >>only >> saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls >>take >> multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do the >> transformation? >> >> >Alex, if you have a SVGFoo.prototype.fooBar and SVGFooable defines fooBar, >the actual class needs to be get/set not var because the class declares >implements SVGFooable. > >Catch my dirft? I do this already with all existing interfaces. It's just >SVG is a mess and has a huge amount of interfaces. And this is why Om and I think you can do it ;-) -Alex
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > > >Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has > >10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes > >transformed to get/set. > > I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I only > saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls take > multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do the > transformation? > > Alex, if you have a SVGFoo.prototype.fooBar and SVGFooable defines fooBar, the actual class needs to be get/set not var because the class declares implements SVGFooable. Catch my dirft? I do this already with all existing interfaces. It's just SVG is a mess and has a huge amount of interfaces. Mike > If you can get this file to convert to AS even procedurally, I’ll find a > way to get it into the build and JS.swc. > > > > >Who thinks I can do this? Haha > > If there is anyone who can do it, it would be you ;-) > > -Alex > >
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
Piotr, Please file a JIRA issue and attach one of these broken SWFs. Thanks, -Alex On 6/17/15, 2:29 PM, "piotrz" wrote: >I build DataGridExample and got exactly same error during the launch of >swf >and following errors in the javascripts: [1] [2] > >[1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/EW1mNkuX76gxcUMH-Obszar.png >[2] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/8T08aAVeUftNosFb-Cayekran.png > >Piotr > > > >- >Apache Flex PMC >piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >-- >View this message in context: >http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW- >AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47934.html >Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
Well I got it to compile on one condition. I had to turn on the emit props and methods for the interfaces. The actual classes themselves have all the definitions. There are major conflicts with the SVG* interfaces and some base stuff. Example; Element.style is CSSStyleDeclaration, in SVG it redeclares this on SVGStylable as a different type. So Om, I compiled the SWC and just put it on my server for you to try, before I commit anything, you need to see if it works the way you need. http://www.teotigraphix.com/assets/JS.swc Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > > >Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has > >10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes > >transformed to get/set. > > I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I only > saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls take > multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do the > transformation? > > If you can get this file to convert to AS even procedurally, I’ll find a > way to get it into the build and JS.swc. > > > > >Who thinks I can do this? Haha > > If there is anyone who can do it, it would be you ;-) > > -Alex > >
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
On 6/17/15, 2:47 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: >Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has >10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes >transformed to get/set. I’m not sure I understand the part about prototype transformation. I only saw one get/set pair that could be a property. Lots of .setXXX calls take multiple parameters. Does it make it easier if you don’t have to do the transformation? If you can get this file to convert to AS even procedurally, I’ll find a way to get it into the build and JS.swc. > >Who thinks I can do this? Haha If there is anyone who can do it, it would be you ;-) -Alex
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote: > Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has > 10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes > transformed to get/set. > > Who thinks I can do this? haha > > Mike > Dude, I have been refreshing my gmail waiting for you to send out an update. Of course you can do this! Om > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Yeah I am using it but it has to be available for compiler just like the > > other ones are. > > > > Mike > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 6/17/15, 1:41 PM, "Michael Schmalle" > >> wrote: > >> > >> >I needed to ask about what we are going to do about that because the > file > >> >svg. is not part of the closure-compiler project, it's external. > >> > >> I think you can use this one. > >> https://closureidl.googlecode.com/files/svg.js > >> > >> -Alex > >> > >> > > >
RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
I build DataGridExample and got exactly same error during the launch of swf and following errors in the javascripts: [1] [2] [1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/EW1mNkuX76gxcUMH-Obszar.png [2] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/8T08aAVeUftNosFb-Cayekran.png Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW-AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47934.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
Ah this is a nasty file to deal with, it's generated from IDL and has 10,000 lines with massive interfaces that have to have their prototypes transformed to get/set. Who thinks I can do this? haha Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote: > Yeah I am using it but it has to be available for compiler just like the > other ones are. > > Mike > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/17/15, 1:41 PM, "Michael Schmalle" >> wrote: >> >> >I needed to ask about what we are going to do about that because the file >> >svg. is not part of the closure-compiler project, it's external. >> >> I think you can use this one. >> https://closureidl.googlecode.com/files/svg.js >> >> -Alex >> >> >
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Josh Tynjala wrote: > IntelliJ IDEA is an prominent IDE for ActionScript developers these days. I > totally understand why you want this compiler to work well there. I use > IntelliJ IDEA every day, so I would love it if everything worked there, out > of the box. > > I'm just throwing in my two cents about what I see as potential user > experience issues, especially in other environments that don't have the > same limitations. If I come off as overly critical or judgmental, I hope > you can read that as me trying to be quick to help out where I can with the > short time I have to contribute right now. > > Yes, we are on the same wave, I didn't think this at all and I appreciate your 2cents very much. I just wanted to make it clear I am flying by the seat of my pants and can't believe this works already. So the comment was more from, I may be cutting corners right now but it was to prove the prototype which i think I have now. Mike > - Josh > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Just to add, I am coming at this as a compiler dev not a user right now. > So > > Josh, I may seem short sighted trying to hack something with an IDE I use > > but I hope you don't get that impression from me. > > > > I annoyed that IJ doesn't use the Object definition of our Object. > > I have a feeling I know why and it has to do with their "language" plugin > > because Flash support is really just javascript support with some addons. > > > > I already stated I don't want to do this JSObject thing, let the record > be > > known. :) > > > > But I also want as much chance for this little compiler project with JS > to > > have as much possible success. Not having native Object properties for > ES3 > > and ES5 seems strange to someone trying it. > > > > Mike > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Frédéric THOMAS < > webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Well, looking at it better, we probably have everything we need with > our > > > OOP mechanism for not having to use it. > > > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: aha...@adobe.com > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > > > Integration) > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:36:16 + > > > > > > > > Along that line of thinking: What are some (or all) of the APIs on > > Object > > > > that are missing, and realistically, how often should someone want to > > use > > > > them? Do we think folks writing TS code use them? If not, and there > is > > a > > > > different way to do the same thing in AS, and few folks are even > going > > to > > > > hit this, maybe we just put it in the RELEASE_NOTES and see if we can > > > > attract users and they will put the pressure on JetBrains. > > > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > On 6/17/15, 9:28 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote: > > > > > > > >>Seems to me like we could get a bunch of developers who are > interested > > in > > > >>the compiler to pile on and vote on an issue to show that it's > > important. > > > >>I'd rather not have the compiler jump through hoops just to get one > > buggy > > > >>IDE to give proper code hinting. > > > >> > > > >>- Josh > > > >> > > > >>On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Schmalle > > > >> > > >>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS > > > >>> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject > > > >>>that > > > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ > > > >>>code > > > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's > ECMA2 > > > Object > > > > and not JSObject. > > > > > > Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care > about > > > >>> Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't > > matter. > > > >>> > > > >>> But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these > > > properties > > > >>> and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. > > > >>> > > > >>> That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and > > > >>>implement > > > >>> this. > > > >>> > > > >>> I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my > > > >>>mother in > > > >>> law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, > > > also > > > >>> why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. > > > >>> > > > >>> Mike > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 > > > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] > > > >>>IntelliJ > > > Integration) > > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > > >>
RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
Initially I was removing JS.swc from the folder, but now I did as you said remove it from configuration dependencies. With your fix I was able to use Mxmlc/Compc options and this is what I got in the console [1]. Attempt to launch swf [2]. Once I click Continue (in Polsish Kontynuuj) I got [3]. JS versions of app working fine. Maybe something is wrong on my PC if it is working fine for you. Additionally since we have our building in a quite good shape maybe we should ping again with current status jetbrains. Describe in the ticket what we have and what we couldn't achieve. [4] [1] https://paste.apache.org/7x2U [2] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/LWbV61rC7zAf4cuw-Obszar.png [3] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/cfnyakhgVcBH3Vwv-Obszar.png [4] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-116986 Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW-AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47931.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
IntelliJ IDEA is an prominent IDE for ActionScript developers these days. I totally understand why you want this compiler to work well there. I use IntelliJ IDEA every day, so I would love it if everything worked there, out of the box. I'm just throwing in my two cents about what I see as potential user experience issues, especially in other environments that don't have the same limitations. If I come off as overly critical or judgmental, I hope you can read that as me trying to be quick to help out where I can with the short time I have to contribute right now. - Josh On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Michael Schmalle < teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just to add, I am coming at this as a compiler dev not a user right now. So > Josh, I may seem short sighted trying to hack something with an IDE I use > but I hope you don't get that impression from me. > > I annoyed that IJ doesn't use the Object definition of our Object. > I have a feeling I know why and it has to do with their "language" plugin > because Flash support is really just javascript support with some addons. > > I already stated I don't want to do this JSObject thing, let the record be > known. :) > > But I also want as much chance for this little compiler project with JS to > have as much possible success. Not having native Object properties for ES3 > and ES5 seems strange to someone trying it. > > Mike > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Frédéric THOMAS > wrote: > > > Well, looking at it better, we probably have everything we need with our > > OOP mechanism for not having to use it. > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > > > > > From: aha...@adobe.com > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > > Integration) > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:36:16 + > > > > > > Along that line of thinking: What are some (or all) of the APIs on > Object > > > that are missing, and realistically, how often should someone want to > use > > > them? Do we think folks writing TS code use them? If not, and there is > a > > > different way to do the same thing in AS, and few folks are even going > to > > > hit this, maybe we just put it in the RELEASE_NOTES and see if we can > > > attract users and they will put the pressure on JetBrains. > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > On 6/17/15, 9:28 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote: > > > > > >>Seems to me like we could get a bunch of developers who are interested > in > > >>the compiler to pile on and vote on an issue to show that it's > important. > > >>I'd rather not have the compiler jump through hoops just to get one > buggy > > >>IDE to give proper code hinting. > > >> > > >>- Josh > > >> > > >>On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Schmalle > > >> > >>> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS > > >>> > > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject > > >>>that > > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ > > >>>code > > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > > Object > > > and not JSObject. > > > > Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? > > > > >>> > > >>> Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care about > > >>> Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't > matter. > > >>> > > >>> But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these > > properties > > >>> and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. > > >>> > > >>> That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and > > >>>implement > > >>> this. > > >>> > > >>> I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my > > >>>mother in > > >>> law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, > > also > > >>> why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. > > >>> > > >>> Mike > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 > > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] > > >>>IntelliJ > > Integration) > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject > > >>>that > > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ > > >>>code > > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > > Object > > > and not JSObject. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < > > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend O
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
Yeah I am using it but it has to be available for compiler just like the other ones are. Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, 1:41 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > > >I needed to ask about what we are going to do about that because the file > >svg. is not part of the closure-compiler project, it's external. > > I think you can use this one. > https://closureidl.googlecode.com/files/svg.js > > -Alex > >
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
On 6/17/15, 1:41 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: >I needed to ask about what we are going to do about that because the file >svg. is not part of the closure-compiler project, it's external. I think you can use this one. https://closureidl.googlecode.com/files/svg.js -Alex
Re: [FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
Nope, they had a lot of interfaces and when I initially showed you that I had totally hacked a bunch of stuff. All the while, I went back and refactored everything and wrote unit tests from the ground up using the closure compiler's parser and AST. The funny thing is I knew you were going to ask about them. I needed to ask about what we are going to do about that because the file svg. is not part of the closure-compiler project, it's external. I got a couple hours right now so I will see what blows up when I parse it with my new code I wrote. I will let you know, but what is really important is we need to have the file to parse so the definitions can be added to0 the SWC. BTW it's fine to always call me Mike, haha. Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:19 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > Michael, > > I thought that you had added these definitions in JS.swc. At least I > remember seeing a screenshot with all the SVG related classes. Any chance > you can take a look and see what's happening? > > Now that I have everything working on Flash Builder, I want to build a > couple of really cool demo apps. > > Thanks, > Om >
Re: FlashBuilder stopped working
Just and FYI if this happens to you: Had this happen now twice today. First time I deleted the entire .metadata directory (rather than a full install). While that worked, it meant I had to reset my preferences. The second time I deleted .metadata/.plugins/org.eclipse.core.resources/.safetable (I did not see .snap on the mac). This also worked and preserved my preferences. Thanks for the tip about .metadata - did not want to have to re-install FB again. Peter Ent Adobe Systems On 6/16/15, 11:33 AM, "Nick Collins" wrote: >The best fix is to upgrade to IntelliJ :-) > >On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Peter Ent wrote: > >> Thanks for the suggestion. I will file that away, but I¹ve already >> re-installed it (just finished) and it seems fine again. Wonder what >>went >> all wacky-pants. >> >> ‹peter >> >> On 6/15/15, 3:54 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >> >> >Usually deleting the >> >file: .metadata\.plugins\org.eclipse.core.resources\.snap fixes all >>sorts >> >of issues for me. Deleting the entire .metadata folder would be my >>next >> >thing to try :-) >> > >> >Thanks, >> >Om >> > >> >On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Josh Tynjala >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Did you try deleting the .metadata directory in your workspace? That >> >>fixes >> >> a lot of strange issues. >> >> >> >> - Josh >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Peter Ent wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > Up until an hour or so ago, Flash Builder 4.7 was running fine. I >> >>rebuilt >> >> > a library, stopped FB, and restarted it (which I've done many, >>many, >> >>many >> >> > times). This time however, the workspace window opened and then >>closed >> >> > immediately and the process stopped. >> >> > >> >> > System: Mac OS X Yosemite (10.10.3) >> >> > >> >> > The system console reports this error: >> >> > 6/15/15 2:56:39.058 PM Adobe Flash Builder 4.7[1379]: WARNING: The >> >> Gestalt >> >> > selector gestaltSystemVersion is returning 10.9.3 instead of >>10.10.3. >> >>Use >> >> > NSProcessInfo's operatingSystemVersion property to get correct >>system >> >> > version number. >> >> > >> >> > I've searched the internet for help and came up: a) Java version >>(I've >> >> > been running with 1.7 for a good while now) b) uninstall and >> >>re-install >> >> > Flash Builder. >> >> > >> >> > I'm off to un-install and re-install, but I'm wondering if anyone >>else >> >> has >> >> > run into this and found a better solution (or if installing even >> >>works). >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Peter Ent >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
[FlexJS] JS.swc does not seem to have any SVG* element defintions
Michael, I thought that you had added these definitions in JS.swc. At least I remember seeing a screenshot with all the SVG related classes. Any chance you can take a look and see what's happening? Now that I have everything working on Flash Builder, I want to build a couple of really cool demo apps. Thanks, Om
[FlexJS] Using JS.swc in Flash Builder - update
I just tried it out with Flash Builder. Some issues along the way:
1. I can add it as a .swc dependency in the Build Path settings. Code
completion, etc. works great from within FB.
But the FlexJS crosscompiler ExternalTool does not seem to be able to
resolve the dependency. This is the error:
using FlashBuilder Project Files
FlashBuilder settings:
-locale
en_US
-source-path+=C:\p\flexroot\git\flex-asjs\examples\ASJSDOMManipulationExample/src
-compiler.accessible=true
-output=C:\p\flexroot\git\flex-asjs\examples\ASJSDOMManipulationExample/bin-release/ASJSDOMManipulationExample.swf
-library-path+=C:\p\flexroot\git\flex-asjs\examples\ASJSDOMManipulationExample/${SDK_THEMES_DIR}/js/libs/temp/externals/bin/JS.swc
-js-output-type=FLEXJS
-sdk-js-lib=C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Flash Builder 4.7 (64
Bit)\sdks\FlexJS_0.0.3\js\bin\..\..\frameworks\js\FlexJS\src
-fb
C:\p\flexroot\git\flex-asjs\examples\ASJSDOMManipulationExample/src/ASJSDOMManipulationExample.mxml
command line
configuration variable 'compiler.library-path' value contains unknown token
'SDK_THEMES_DIR'.
2. Next step, I copied over the JS.swc file in the project's lib folder.
That seemed to work, except that there are no JS equivalents for all the
HTML DOM stuff:
using SWC: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Flash Builder 4.7 (64
Bit)\sdks\FlexJS_0.0.3\frameworks\libs\JQuery.swc
using SWC: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Flash Builder 4.7 (64
Bit)\sdks\FlexJS_0.0.3\frameworks\libs\Mobile.swc
using SWC: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Flash Builder 4.7 (64
Bit)\sdks\FlexJS_0.0.3\frameworks\libs\Network.swc
using SWC:
C:\p\flexroot\git\flex-asjs\examples\ASJSDOMManipulationExample\libs\JS.swc
Could not find file for class: HTMLDivElement
File not found: HTMLDivElement
java.lang.RuntimeException: Unable to find JavaScript filePath for class:
HTMLDivElement
at
org.apache.flex.compiler.internal.graph.GoogDepsWriter.addDeps(GoogDepsWriter.java:174)
at
org.apache.flex.compiler.internal.graph.GoogDepsWriter.addDeps(GoogDepsWriter.java:192)
at
org.apache.flex.compiler.internal.graph.GoogDepsWriter.buildDB(GoogDepsWriter.java:127)
at
org.apache.flex.compiler.internal.graph.GoogDepsWriter.getListOfFiles(GoogDepsWriter.java:79)
at
org.apache.flex.compiler.internal.codegen.mxml.flexjs.MXMLFlexJSPublisher.publish(MXMLFlexJSPublisher.java:277)
at org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJSC.compile(MXMLJSC.java:455)
at org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJSC._mainNoExit(MXMLJSC.java:319)
at org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJSC.mainNoExit(MXMLJSC.java:247)
at
org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJSC.staticMainNoExit(MXMLJSC.java:207)
at org.apache.flex.compiler.clients.MXMLJSC.main(MXMLJSC.java:156)
3. Then I saw Alex's note about JS.swc working only with a AS only project
that simply spits out JS files.
The problem with FB is that when I try to do that, the AIR SDK 3.4 is
chosen by default. I remove AIR SDK from the newly created project and add
only JS.swc as the dependency.
Then I created a simple AS3 class:
AS:
package
{
public class AS3DOM
{
public function AS3DOM()
{
}
public function start():void
{
var div:HTMLDivElement = HTMLDivElement(document.createElement("div"));
div.innerHTML = "Hello";
document.body.appendChild(div);
}
}
}
JS:
/**
* @expose
*/
AS3DOM.prototype.start = function() {
var /** @type {HTMLDivElement} */ div =
org_apache_flex_utils_Language.as(document.createElement("div"),
HTMLDivElement, true);
div.innerHTML = "Hello";
document.body.appendChild(div);
};
I created a new FlexJS compile tool that runs jsc.bat on the project.
Everything compiled fine and an index.html was spit out. And it renders
perfectly fine on the web browser!!!
I will create a more comprehensive test and send it out as separate email.
Thanks,
Om
Re: [FlexJS] WebAssembly is here
Haha, this is paid work man, that is a lot of work to do this. :) this is like writing another SWF bytecode emitter. Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 3:17 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > Just going through the design docs here: > > https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/AstSemantics.md > https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/BinaryEncoding.md > > Lots of stuff that go over my head, but might be of interest to the > compiler gurus here. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala < > bigosma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Looks like we can bypass compilation to JavaScript and go directly to > > bytecode that runs in browsers soon: > > > > https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/ > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > >
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
Just to add, I am coming at this as a compiler dev not a user right now. So Josh, I may seem short sighted trying to hack something with an IDE I use but I hope you don't get that impression from me. I annoyed that IJ doesn't use the Object definition of our Object. I have a feeling I know why and it has to do with their "language" plugin because Flash support is really just javascript support with some addons. I already stated I don't want to do this JSObject thing, let the record be known. :) But I also want as much chance for this little compiler project with JS to have as much possible success. Not having native Object properties for ES3 and ES5 seems strange to someone trying it. Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Frédéric THOMAS wrote: > Well, looking at it better, we probably have everything we need with our > OOP mechanism for not having to use it. > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > From: aha...@adobe.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:36:16 + > > > > Along that line of thinking: What are some (or all) of the APIs on Object > > that are missing, and realistically, how often should someone want to use > > them? Do we think folks writing TS code use them? If not, and there is a > > different way to do the same thing in AS, and few folks are even going to > > hit this, maybe we just put it in the RELEASE_NOTES and see if we can > > attract users and they will put the pressure on JetBrains. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 6/17/15, 9:28 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote: > > > >>Seems to me like we could get a bunch of developers who are interested in > >>the compiler to pile on and vote on an issue to show that it's important. > >>I'd rather not have the compiler jump through hoops just to get one buggy > >>IDE to give proper code hinting. > >> > >>- Josh > >> > >>On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Schmalle > >> >>> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject > >>>that > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ > >>>code > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > Object > > and not JSObject. > > Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? > > >>> > >>> Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care about > >>> Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't matter. > >>> > >>> But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these > properties > >>> and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. > >>> > >>> That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and > >>>implement > >>> this. > >>> > >>> I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my > >>>mother in > >>> law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, > also > >>> why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. > >>> > >>> Mike > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] > >>>IntelliJ > Integration) > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject > >>>that > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ > >>>code > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > Object > > and not JSObject. > > > > Mike > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > webdoubl...@hotmail.com > >>> wrote: > >> > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject > >>> would > >>> have > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code > >>> hint > correctly > >>> > >>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even > >>> though > >>> JSObject doesn't extend Object. > >>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you > >>>meet > the > >>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and > >>>while > >>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do > >>> the > >>> trick ? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! > >>>;-) > >> That is the sticker point here, you see my point? > >> > >> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it > >>>would > >> matter in IJ. > >> > >> Still the emitter will need to know ab
Re: [FlexJS] WebAssembly is here
Just going through the design docs here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/AstSemantics.md https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/BinaryEncoding.md Lots of stuff that go over my head, but might be of interest to the compiler gurus here. Thanks, Om On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:36 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > Looks like we can bypass compilation to JavaScript and go directly to > bytecode that runs in browsers soon: > > https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/ > > Thanks, > Om >
[FlexJS] WebAssembly is here
Looks like we can bypass compilation to JavaScript and go directly to bytecode that runs in browsers soon: https://brendaneich.com/2015/06/from-asm-js-to-webassembly/ Thanks, Om
RE: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
Well, looking at it better, we probably have everything we need with our OOP mechanism for not having to use it. Frédéric THOMAS > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:36:16 + > > Along that line of thinking: What are some (or all) of the APIs on Object > that are missing, and realistically, how often should someone want to use > them? Do we think folks writing TS code use them? If not, and there is a > different way to do the same thing in AS, and few folks are even going to > hit this, maybe we just put it in the RELEASE_NOTES and see if we can > attract users and they will put the pressure on JetBrains. > > -Alex > > On 6/17/15, 9:28 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote: > >>Seems to me like we could get a bunch of developers who are interested in >>the compiler to pile on and vote on an issue to show that it's important. >>I'd rather not have the compiler jump through hoops just to get one buggy >>IDE to give proper code hinting. >> >>- Josh >> >>On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Schmalle wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS >> >>> wrote: >>> > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject >>>that > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ >>>code > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 Object > and not JSObject. Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? >>> >>> Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care about >>> Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't matter. >>> >>> But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these properties >>> and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. >>> >>> That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and >>>implement >>> this. >>> >>> I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my >>>mother in >>> law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, also >>> why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Frédéric THOMAS > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] >>>IntelliJ Integration) > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject >>>that > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ >>>code > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 Object > and not JSObject. > > Mike > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < webdoubl...@hotmail.com >>> wrote: >> What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject >>> would >>> have all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code >>> hint correctly >>> >>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even >>> though >>> JSObject doesn't extend Object. >>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you >>>meet the >>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and >>>while >>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do >>> the >>> trick ? >>> >> >> >> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! >>>;-) >> That is the sticker point here, you see my point? >> >> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it >>>would >> matter in IJ. >> >> Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it >>> back to >> Object during cross compile. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >>> > If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > I would bet it wouldn't. >>> >>> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the >>> dynamic >>> nature of Object. >>> >>> Frédéric THOMAS >>> >>> >>> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] >>> IntelliJ >>> Integration) From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com To: dev@flex.apache.org On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" >>> wrote: > >>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package >>>level >>> class >>>to >>>
Re: [FlexJS] FlexJS vs. AngularJS 2.0
I think a comparison to polymer would be interesting as well. Richard Oren 714-916-2102 > On 15 Jun 2015, at 1:06 pm, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > > Here is a rundown of how to do things with AngularJS 2.0: > http://angular-tips.com/blog/2015/06/why-will-angular-2-rock/ > > As I walk through the details, I see the twists and turns they are going > through to do seemingly simple things. The single biggest reason for that > is that there is no MXML like malleable way to declaratively create the UI > and to wire things up. > > I am interested in seeing a step by step comparison of doing things the > FlexJS way vs. AngularJS2.0 way. Here are a few things we can concentrate > on: > > 1. Module loading > 2. Classes > 4. Components > 5. Design Patterns > 6. Events > 7. Calling webservices > 8. Skinning > ... > > Anyone wants to volunteer to help write this document? This would involve > understanding and writing FlexJS code samples. This would also involve > understanding AngularJS2.0 as well. Which is a benefit on its own. > > Volunteers? > > Thanks, > Om
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
Along that line of thinking: What are some (or all) of the APIs on Object that are missing, and realistically, how often should someone want to use them? Do we think folks writing TS code use them? If not, and there is a different way to do the same thing in AS, and few folks are even going to hit this, maybe we just put it in the RELEASE_NOTES and see if we can attract users and they will put the pressure on JetBrains. -Alex On 6/17/15, 9:28 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote: >Seems to me like we could get a bunch of developers who are interested in >the compiler to pile on and vote on an issue to show that it's important. >I'd rather not have the compiler jump through hoops just to get one buggy >IDE to give proper code hinting. > >- Josh > >On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Schmalle >> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS >>> > >> wrote: >> >> > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject >>that >> > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ >>code >> > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 >> > Object >> > > and not JSObject. >> > >> > Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? >> > >> >> Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care about >> Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't matter. >> >> But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these properties >> and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. >> >> That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and >>implement >> this. >> >> I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my >>mother in >> law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, also >> why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> > >> > Frédéric THOMAS >> > >> > >> > >> > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 >> > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] >>IntelliJ >> > Integration) >> > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > > >> > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject >>that >> > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ >>code >> > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 >> > Object >> > > and not JSObject. >> > > >> > > Mike >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < >> > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < >> > webdoubl...@hotmail.com >> > >>> wrote: >> > >> >> > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject >> would >> > >>> have >> > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code >> hint >> > correctly >> > >>> >> > >>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even >> though >> > >>> JSObject doesn't extend Object. >> > >>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you >>meet >> > the >> > >>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and >>while >> > >>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do >> the >> > >>> trick ? >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! >>;-) >> > >> That is the sticker point here, you see my point? >> > >> >> > >> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it >>would >> > >> matter in IJ. >> > >> >> > >> Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it >> back >> > to >> > >> Object during cross compile. >> > >> >> > >> Mike >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > > If Adobe adds something to Object in >> > > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >> > > >> > >> > I would bet it wouldn't. >> > >>> >> > >>> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the >> dynamic >> > >>> nature of Object. >> > >>> >> > >>> Frédéric THOMAS >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 >> > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] >> IntelliJ >> > >>> Integration) >> > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui >> > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" >> > >>> wrote: >> > > >> > >>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package >>level >> > >>> class >> > >>>to >> > >>> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. >> > >> >> > >>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no >>way >> to >> > >>> get >> > >>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option >> seems >> > >>> good >> > >>to me, what about you ? >> > > >> > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance fro
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
Seems like it would also make things weird for developers that don't use IntelliJ IDEA, not to mention every other IDE that might want to support this compiler. Will everyone be forced to deal with this weird JSObject hack? Or can it be hidden behind some compiler flag that only IntelliJ IDEA users will need to use? - Josh On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Josh Tynjala wrote: > Seems to me like we could get a bunch of developers who are interested in > the compiler to pile on and vote on an issue to show that it's important. > I'd rather not have the compiler jump through hoops just to get one buggy > IDE to give proper code hinting. > > - Josh > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < >> webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that >> > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code >> > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 >> > Object >> > > and not JSObject. >> > >> > Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? >> > >> >> Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care about >> Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't matter. >> >> But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these properties >> and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. >> >> That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and implement >> this. >> >> I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my mother >> in >> law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, also >> why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> > >> > Frédéric THOMAS >> > >> > >> > >> > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 >> > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ >> > Integration) >> > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >> > > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > > >> > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that >> > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code >> > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 >> > Object >> > > and not JSObject. >> > > >> > > Mike >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < >> > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < >> > webdoubl...@hotmail.com >> > >>> wrote: >> > >> >> > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject >> would >> > >>> have >> > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code >> hint >> > correctly >> > >>> >> > >>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even >> though >> > >>> JSObject doesn't extend Object. >> > >>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you >> meet >> > the >> > >>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while >> > >>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do >> the >> > >>> trick ? >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! >> ;-) >> > >> That is the sticker point here, you see my point? >> > >> >> > >> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it >> would >> > >> matter in IJ. >> > >> >> > >> Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it >> back >> > to >> > >> Object during cross compile. >> > >> >> > >> Mike >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> >> > > If Adobe adds something to Object in >> > > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >> > > >> > >> > I would bet it wouldn't. >> > >>> >> > >>> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the >> dynamic >> > >>> nature of Object. >> > >>> >> > >>> Frédéric THOMAS >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 >> > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] >> IntelliJ >> > >>> Integration) >> > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui >> > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" >> > >>> wrote: >> > > >> > >>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level >> > >>> class >> > >>>to >> > >>> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. >> > >> >> > >>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way >> to >> > >>> get >> > >>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option >> seems >> > >>> good >> > >>to me, what about you ? >> > > >> > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends >> > Object? >> > > >> >
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
Seems to me like we could get a bunch of developers who are interested in the compiler to pile on and vote on an issue to show that it's important. I'd rather not have the compiler jump through hoops just to get one buggy IDE to give proper code hinting. - Josh On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Schmalle wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS > > wrote: > > > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that > > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code > > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > > Object > > > and not JSObject. > > > > Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? > > > > Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care about > Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't matter. > > But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these properties > and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. > > That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and implement > this. > > I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my mother in > law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, also > why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. > > Mike > > > > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 > > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > > Integration) > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that > > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code > > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > > Object > > > and not JSObject. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < > > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com > > >>> wrote: > > >> > > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject > would > > >>> have > > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code > hint > > correctly > > >>> > > >>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even > though > > >>> JSObject doesn't extend Object. > > >>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet > > the > > >>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while > > >>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do > the > > >>> trick ? > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) > > >> That is the sticker point here, you see my point? > > >> > > >> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would > > >> matter in IJ. > > >> > > >> Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it > back > > to > > >> Object during cross compile. > > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > If Adobe adds something to Object in > > > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > > > > > > > I would bet it wouldn't. > > >>> > > >>> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the > dynamic > > >>> nature of Object. > > >>> > > >>> Frédéric THOMAS > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] > IntelliJ > > >>> Integration) > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level > > >>> class > > >>>to > > >>> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > > >> > > >>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way > to > > >>> get > > >>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option > seems > > >>> good > > >>to me, what about you ? > > > > > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends > > Object? > > > > > > > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject > would > > >>> have > > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code > hint > > correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the > > >>> JSObject > > would extend from that. > > > > As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut > > and > > dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in > the > > >>> code > > for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have > > metadata. > > > > > >
RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
> Is there a way to get IJ to tell us which SWCs are in the library-path vs > the external-library-path? I’m wondering if this can happen if > playerglobal is in the library-path. No, there is not an easy way, the time to live of the IJ generated config.xml based on the build configuration is very short, the time of the compilation, therefore difficult to catch, the really only way I've been able to do it was while debugging the compiler and seen playerglobal.swc was in external-libray-path Frédéric THOMAS > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:32:38 + > > Is there a way to get IJ to tell us which SWCs are in the library-path vs > the external-library-path? I’m wondering if this can happen if > playerglobal is in the library-path. > > -Alex > > On 6/17/15, 7:29 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: > >> >>I assume you removed it from the IJ module build configuration >>dependencies, there are no other references to it and you did build / >>rebuild project ? >> >>I have to admit, I can't see a reason, it works for me but now with the >>fix I did yesterday (thanks again btw) does the IJ message output pan >>after the build with the compiler option set to Mxmlc/Compc tells >>something that could give a clue ? >> >>Frédéric THOMAS >> >> >> >>> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:00:55 -0700 >>> From: piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration >>> >>> As I said I have removed it and build pass, but I'm having this issue >>>once >>> I'm trying to launch swf version of app. - I don't know why. [1] :( >>> >>> This is for sure not the solution - getting buildable project after I >>>remove >>> JS.swc. :) >>> >>> [1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/34OZOpM8gIUatE2p-Obszar.png >>> >>> Piotr >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> Apache Flex PMC >>> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>>http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW >>>-AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47902.html >>> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at >>>Nabble.com. >> >
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Frédéric THOMAS wrote: > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > Object > > and not JSObject. > > Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? > Correct, it's just candy for the IDE. If somebody doesn't care about Object.create() or myInstance.__proto__ then it really doesn't matter. But we cannot call this true JS until we allow natively these properties and methods of ES3 and ES5 IMO. That is why eventually I am going to have to bite the bullet and implement this. I got a busy 2 weeks coming up, I have a lot of remodeling for my mother in law to do so I won't have as much time as I did these last 3 weeks, also why I busted my ass, so people could have something to try out. Mike > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that > > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code > > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 > Object > > and not JSObject. > > > > Mike > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > webdoubl...@hotmail.com > >>> wrote: > >> > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would > >>> have > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint > correctly > >>> > >>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though > >>> JSObject doesn't extend Object. > >>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet > the > >>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while > >>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the > >>> trick ? > >>> > >> > >> > >> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) > >> That is the sticker point here, you see my point? > >> > >> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would > >> matter in IJ. > >> > >> Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it back > to > >> Object during cross compile. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > If Adobe adds something to Object in > > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > > > > I would bet it wouldn't. > >>> > >>> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic > >>> nature of Object. > >>> > >>> Frédéric THOMAS > >>> > >>> > >>> > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > >>> Integration) > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui > wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" > >>> wrote: > > > >>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level > >>> class > >>>to > >>> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > >> > >>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to > >>> get > >>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems > >>> good > >>to me, what about you ? > > > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends > Object? > > > > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would > >>> have > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint > correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the > >>> JSObject > would extend from that. > > As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut > and > dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the > >>> code > for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have > metadata. > > > > > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How > >>> does > > IJ have a hard coded definition? > > > It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled > SWF I > would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal > >>> in a > Flex/ActionScript project > > > > > Is this just for code completion in the > > editor or is it compile time as well? > > > It's code hinting. > > > > > I would think that if they are > > calling our compiler that we could control this issue.
RE: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
> Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 Object > and not JSObject. Yes, it is what I meant but EVERYTHING in JS.swc only, right ? Frédéric THOMAS > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:22:06 -0400 > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that > extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code > completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 Object > and not JSObject. > > Mike > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < > teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS >> wrote: >> What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would >>> have all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint correctly >>> >>> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though >>> JSObject doesn't extend Object. >>> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet the >>> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while >>> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the >>> trick ? >>> >> >> >> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) >> That is the sticker point here, you see my point? >> >> Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would >> matter in IJ. >> >> Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it back to >> Object during cross compile. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >>> > If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > I would bet it wouldn't. >>> >>> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic >>> nature of Object. >>> >>> Frédéric THOMAS >>> >>> >>> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ >>> Integration) From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com To: dev@flex.apache.org On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" >>> wrote: > >>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level >>> class >>>to >>> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. >> >>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to >>> get >>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems >>> good >>to me, what about you ? > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would >>> have all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the >>> JSObject would extend from that. As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the >>> code for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata. > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How >>> does > IJ have a hard coded definition? It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal >>> in a Flex/ActionScript project > Is this just for code completion in the > editor or is it compile time as well? It's code hinting. > I would think that if they are > calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these days. > If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > I would bet it wouldn't. The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is barfing. Mike > > -Alex > > > >>> >>> >> >>
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
Oh yeah one other thing Fred, EVERYTING needs to extend JSObject that extends Object(in the externs def) for it to work correctly in IJ code completion. Or else IJ will think the HTML class extends it's ECMA2 Object and not JSObject. Mike On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Michael Schmalle < teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS > wrote: > >> > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would >> have >> > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint >> > correctly >> >> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though >> JSObject doesn't extend Object. >> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet the >> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while >> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the >> trick ? >> > > > Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) > That is the sticker point here, you see my point? > > Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would > matter in IJ. > > Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it back to > Object during cross compile. > > Mike > > > >> >> >> If Adobe adds something to Object in >> >> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >> >> >> > >> > I would bet it wouldn't. >> >> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic >> nature of Object. >> >> Frédéric THOMAS >> >> >> >> > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 >> > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ >> Integration) >> > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" >> wrote: >> >> >> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level >> class >> to >> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. >> >>> >> >>>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to >> get >> >>>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems >> good >> >>>to me, what about you ? >> >> >> >> Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? >> >> >> > >> > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would >> have >> > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint >> > correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the >> JSObject >> > would extend from that. >> > >> > As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and >> > dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the >> code >> > for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata. >> > >> > >> > >> >> Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How >> does >> >> IJ have a hard coded definition? >> > >> > >> > It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I >> > would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal >> in a >> > Flex/ActionScript project >> > >> > >> > >> >> Is this just for code completion in the >> >> editor or is it compile time as well? >> > >> > >> > It's code hinting. >> > >> > >> > >> >> I would think that if they are >> >> calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug >> >> worth filing against IJ? >> > >> > >> > >> > Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these >> > days. >> > >> > >> > >> >> If Adobe adds something to Object in >> >> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >> >> >> > >> > I would bet it wouldn't. >> > >> > >> > The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is >> > barfing. >> > >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
RE: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
> Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) That > is the sticker point here, you see my point? Ah yes, I see your point, does it mean we should live without completion in IJ for this extended definition ? Btw, weird, it seems to be like that only for Object, For Array I can do Array.isArray() with completion. Frédéric THOMAS > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:20:29 -0400 > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS > wrote: > >>> What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would >> have >>> all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint >>> correctly >> >> I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though >> JSObject doesn't extend Object. >> When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet the >> Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while >> emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the >> trick ? >> > > > Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) That > is the sticker point here, you see my point? > > Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would > matter in IJ. > > Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it back to > Object during cross compile. > > Mike > > > >> If Adobe adds something to Object in playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >>> >>> I would bet it wouldn't. >> >> IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic >> nature of Object. >> >> Frédéric THOMAS >> >> >> >>> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 >>> Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ >> Integration) >>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com >>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >>> On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: >> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class >>to >> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > >Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get >it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems >> good >to me, what about you ? Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? >>> >>> What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would >> have >>> all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint >>> correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the >> JSObject >>> would extend from that. >>> >>> As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and >>> dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the >> code >>> for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata. >>> >>> >>> Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How >> does IJ have a hard coded definition? >>> >>> >>> It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I >>> would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal in >> a >>> Flex/ActionScript project >>> >>> >>> Is this just for code completion in the editor or is it compile time as well? >>> >>> >>> It's code hinting. >>> >>> >>> I would think that if they are calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug worth filing against IJ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these >>> days. >>> >>> >>> If Adobe adds something to Object in playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >>> >>> I would bet it wouldn't. >>> >>> >>> The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is >>> barfing. >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> -Alex >> >>
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS wrote: > > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would > have > > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint > > correctly > > I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though > JSObject doesn't extend Object. > When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet the > Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while > emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the > trick ? > Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) That is the sticker point here, you see my point? Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would matter in IJ. Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it back to Object during cross compile. Mike > > >> If Adobe adds something to Object in > >> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > >> > > > > I would bet it wouldn't. > > IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic > nature of Object. > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: > >> > Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class > to > not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > >>> > >>>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get > >>>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems > good > >>>to me, what about you ? > >> > >> Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? > >> > > > > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would > have > > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint > > correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the > JSObject > > would extend from that. > > > > As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and > > dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the > code > > for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata. > > > > > > > >> Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How > does > >> IJ have a hard coded definition? > > > > > > It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I > > would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal in > a > > Flex/ActionScript project > > > > > > > >> Is this just for code completion in the > >> editor or is it compile time as well? > > > > > > It's code hinting. > > > > > > > >> I would think that if they are > >> calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > >> worth filing against IJ? > > > > > > > > Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these > > days. > > > > > > > >> If Adobe adds something to Object in > >> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > >> > > > > I would bet it wouldn't. > > > > > > The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is > > barfing. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > >> > >> -Alex > >> > >> > >> > >
RE: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
> What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would have > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint > correctly I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though JSObject doesn't extend Object. When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet the Named Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while emitting the final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the trick ? >> If Adobe adds something to Object in >> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >> > > I would bet it wouldn't. IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic nature of Object. Frédéric THOMAS > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400 > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: >> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class to not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. >>> >>>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get >>>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems good >>>to me, what about you ? >> >> Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? >> > > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would have > all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint > correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the JSObject > would extend from that. > > As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and > dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the code > for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata. > > > >> Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does >> IJ have a hard coded definition? > > > It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I > would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal in a > Flex/ActionScript project > > > >> Is this just for code completion in the >> editor or is it compile time as well? > > > It's code hinting. > > > >> I would think that if they are >> calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug >> worth filing against IJ? > > > > Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these > days. > > > >> If Adobe adds something to Object in >> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >> > > I would bet it wouldn't. > > > The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is > barfing. > > > Mike > > >> >> -Alex >> >> >>
RE: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
> Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? Well, I'm not sure, I propose but could it be messed up if the inheritance was on JSObject for the Object based classes in JS.swc but still emitted with Object in the produced JS file ? > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does > IJ have a hard coded definition? Is this just for code completion in the > editor or is it compile time as well? I would think that if they are > calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? Ij predefined what Flex built-ins should be in \plugins\JavaScriptLanguage\lib\JavaScriptLanguage.jar!\com\intellij\lang\javascript\index\predefined\ECMAScript.js2 see its content https://gist.github.com/doublefx/5227193a9ca83dda105e So, for all those classes, we'll have harcoded hints, it will still compile. What I meant is if it is not that hard to parse the Object definition to JSObject and use this reference in JS.swc then emit Object, it would give us the completion in IJ > If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >From what I get, we won't have the completion but it will compile. > Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? Well, they barely answer when a bug is filled by now and don't fix it Frédéric THOMAS > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:29:47 + > > > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: > >>> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class >>>to >>> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. >> >>Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get >>it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems good >>to me, what about you ? > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does > IJ have a hard coded definition? Is this just for code completion in the > editor or is it compile time as well? I would think that if they are > calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > > -Alex > >
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: > > >> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class > >>to > >> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > > > >Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get > >it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems good > >to me, what about you ? > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would have all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the JSObject would extend from that. As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the code for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata. > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does > IJ have a hard coded definition? It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal in a Flex/ActionScript project > Is this just for code completion in the > editor or is it compile time as well? It's code hinting. > I would think that if they are > calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these days. > If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > I would bet it wouldn't. The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is barfing. Mike > > -Alex > > >
Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
Is there a way to get IJ to tell us which SWCs are in the library-path vs the external-library-path? I’m wondering if this can happen if playerglobal is in the library-path. -Alex On 6/17/15, 7:29 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: > >I assume you removed it from the IJ module build configuration >dependencies, there are no other references to it and you did build / >rebuild project ? > >I have to admit, I can't see a reason, it works for me but now with the >fix I did yesterday (thanks again btw) does the IJ message output pan >after the build with the compiler option set to Mxmlc/Compc tells >something that could give a clue ? > >Frédéric THOMAS > > > >> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:00:55 -0700 >> From: piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration >> >> As I said I have removed it and build pass, but I'm having this issue >>once >> I'm trying to launch swf version of app. - I don't know why. [1] :( >> >> This is for sure not the solution - getting buildable project after I >>remove >> JS.swc. :) >> >> [1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/34OZOpM8gIUatE2p-Obszar.png >> >> Piotr >> >> >> >> - >> Apache Flex PMC >> piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >> -- >> View this message in context: >>http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW >>-AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47902.html >> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at >>Nabble.com. >
RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
I assume you removed it from the IJ module build configuration dependencies, there are no other references to it and you did build / rebuild project ? I have to admit, I can't see a reason, it works for me but now with the fix I did yesterday (thanks again btw) does the IJ message output pan after the build with the compiler option set to Mxmlc/Compc tells something that could give a clue ? Frédéric THOMAS > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:00:55 -0700 > From: piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > > As I said I have removed it and build pass, but I'm having this issue once > I'm trying to launch swf version of app. - I don't know why. [1] :( > > This is for sure not the solution - getting buildable project after I remove > JS.swc. :) > > [1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/34OZOpM8gIUatE2p-Obszar.png > > Piotr > > > > - > Apache Flex PMC > piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW-AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47902.html > Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" wrote: >> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class >>to >> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > >Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get >it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems good >to me, what about you ? Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does IJ have a hard coded definition? Is this just for code completion in the editor or is it compile time as well? I would think that if they are calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug worth filing against IJ? If Adobe adds something to Object in playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? -Alex
RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
As I said I have removed it and build pass, but I'm having this issue once I'm trying to launch swf version of app. - I don't know why. [1] :( This is for sure not the solution - getting buildable project after I remove JS.swc. :) [1] http://images.devs-on.net/Image/34OZOpM8gIUatE2p-Obszar.png Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW-AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47902.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration)
> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class to > not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems good to me, what about you ? Frédéric THOMAS > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:16:24 -0400 > Subject: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration) > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>! Still having things at the root package level is going to cause >>problems, I think we need a solution to this, the CustomEvent and Event >>ambiguous warnings shows its probably going to mess things up. > > Can you give me an example? If you are using JS.SWC, what other swc is > going to define CustomEvent and Event? Again, the set of SWCs has to be > different for different targets. > > Well it happens if you want to use FlexJS and include DOM calls. Even if > you don't want to use SWF, CustomEvent is a DOM event class and at the > package level, so in IJ, it can't resolve CustomEvent in the class code > without it being qualified org.apache.flex.events.CustomEvent. > > Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class to > not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > > Does that make sense? > > Mike
RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
> IMO, if you are building MXML + AS apps that run in SWF and cross compile > to JS, do not include JS.swc in your library path. If you want to build > an AS app that only cross compiles to JS, try to make JS.swc the only > library in your external-library-path. Do not put JS.swc in the regular > library-path. @Piotr Yeah, I should have been more detailed than asking if you've been using js.swc :-) Indeed you can't use it if you want to produce swf / swc Frédéric THOMAS > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:18:06 + > > Thanks for fixing the slash. I wonder how the build did not fail? That’s > kind of disturbing. > > IMO, if you are building MXML + AS apps that run in SWF and cross compile > to JS, do not include JS.swc in your library path. If you want to build > an AS app that only cross compiles to JS, try to make JS.swc the only > library in your external-library-path. Do not put JS.swc in the regular > library-path. > > -Alex > > On 6/16/15, 12:38 PM, "piotrz" wrote: > >>Fred, >> >>I'm not sure what do you mean compile with js.swc to swf. >>If I have JS.swc in "js\libs\temp\externals\bin\" I'm getting errors: >> >>Error:(47, 22) [DataBindingTest]: Ambiguous reference to CustomEvent >> >>So I just removed it and compilation pass through, but with these errors >>for >>swf described above. >> >>Piotr >> >> >> >>- >>Apache Flex PMC >>piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com >>-- >>View this message in context: >>http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Re-Re-Re-Re-Re-AW-AW- >>AW-FlexJS-IntelliJ-Integration-tp47695p47895.html >>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
RE: [FlexJS] FlexJS vs. AngularJS 2.0
Heh Mark - I have started my short adventure with AngularJS from exactly same tutorial. Really good. :) Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-FlexJS-vs-AngularJS-2-0-tp47827p47899.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [FlexJS] FlexJS vs. AngularJS 2.0
On a side note, I remember fiddling with angular a while back. I bumped into this free training for it [1] that gave a good start up understanding of how some of the things work in it. [1] http://campus.codeschool.com/courses/shaping-up-with-angular-js/intro -Mark -Original Message- From: omup...@gmail.com [mailto:omup...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of OmPrakash Muppirala Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 4:06 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: [FlexJS] FlexJS vs. AngularJS 2.0 Here is a rundown of how to do things with AngularJS 2.0: http://angular-tips.com/blog/2015/06/why-will-angular-2-rock/ As I walk through the details, I see the twists and turns they are going through to do seemingly simple things. The single biggest reason for that is that there is no MXML like malleable way to declaratively create the UI and to wire things up. I am interested in seeing a step by step comparison of doing things the FlexJS way vs. AngularJS2.0 way. Here are a few things we can concentrate on: 1. Module loading 2. Classes 4. Components 5. Design Patterns 6. Events 7. Calling webservices 8. Skinning ... Anyone wants to volunteer to help write this document? This would involve understanding and writing FlexJS code samples. This would also involve understanding AngularJS2.0 as well. Which is a benefit on its own. Volunteers? Thanks, Om
