RE: Falcon progress for as flex sdk
That’s interesting, thanks Alex. Makes me feel more like taking a look. I still have several projects that I maintain and some of them are still having new modules or features booked in by the clients. So I'm still working with the SDK daily some months. It really is such a comfortable place to work and I get so much done so quickly for them. Are there still many of us out there with active projects, be they just being maintained or actively developed? I sometimes feel a little alone, but I assume there must be quite a few people with flex projects that are still live. The clients are really happy with what they have too, and they don’t see any need to change tech. Thanks for all the work you guys put in glenn -Original Message- From: Michael Schmalle [mailto:teotigraphix...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 May 2015 14:46 To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: Falcon progress for as flex sdk @Alex, I didn't mean to take away from your work. I only meant "explicit" work mainly targeting SWF, as you said, your work has been related to FlexJS. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 5/12/15, 5:59 AM, "Glenn Williams" wrote: > > >Thanks for the info > > > >:-) if only adobe had given it just one more year ay > > Well, I wouldn’t say that “there hasn’t been any work”. Many changes > I’ve made to Falcon for the SWF output for FlexJS should have > benefited Falcon's ability to generate SWFs for the current Flex SDK. > > Way back in October 2013, I got a large 20MB SWF to complete > compilation of an existing code base and startup and show the right > thing. Unofficial measurements at the time showed only 25% speed > improvement, not 2x or better like many folks were hoping for. I > think those findings killed some enthusiasm to replace MXMLC with Falcon. > > > Sure, Falcon and Flex would be further along if Adobe spent more money > and time on it, but the fact is, it wasn’t working as a business for Adobe. > At least now, the future of this technology is not controlled by a > corporation. It is up to the folks on these mailing lists. > > For the most part, you don’t have to be a compiler expert to work on > Falcon. The kinds of bugs you’ll hit just need patience to find the > right point in the code and get it to do something slightly different. > Folks are welcome to try to use Falcon on their existing projects and file > bugs. > > As Mike points out, if there turns out to be a bug that requires > fixing the BURM, that will be a hard thing to fix, but so far, I haven’t hit > one. > The community could rise up and replace the BURM by creating a SWF > backend for FalconJX. Honestly, I think it could perform even better > than the BURM for the level of optimizations that are currently done by MXMLC. > > -Alex > > > > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Michael Schmalle [mailto:teotigraphix...@gmail.com] > >Sent: 12 May 2015 13:28 > >To: dev@flex.apache.org > >Subject: Re: Falcon progress for as flex sdk > > > >I haven't been around for about 2 years, just started checking the > >commits and things. It seems there really hasn't been any work on the > >SWF Falcon compiler since about the time Gordon stopped committing > >changes to MXML. > > > >I remember I spent a lot of time studying the code, most all classes > >I studied and the BURM is just to complicated to just jump in and > >start doing things. Unless you already have experience with that > >tech, it's almost a full time job working/learning it. > > > >Actually, the BURM in FalconJS is what prompted me to write FalconJX, > >I just didn't have enough time to learn JBurg and understand > >everything that was going on. I spent less time writing the whole > >walker/visitor/compiler framework then the time it would take me to > >learn JBurg. :) > > > >I have a lot of experience with ANTLR and parser/lexers but that is > >only half of the SWF compiler. > > > >Mike > > > >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Glenn Willianms > > > >wrote: > > > >> Hi folks > >> > >> > >> > >> Just trying to catch up on what's been happening over the past few > >> months here > >> > >> > >> > >> Has there been any progress on Flacon when it comes to standard > >> flex projects? > >> > >> > >> > >> Just wanted an update on where we stand right now > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for every ones hard work here > >> > >> > >> > >> Cheers > >> > >> > >> > >> glenn > >> > >> > > > > > > > >- > >No virus found in this message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9755 - Release Date: > >05/12/15 > > > > - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9769 - Release Date: 05/13/15
RE: Falcon progress for as flex sdk
Thanks for the info :-) if only adobe had given it just one more year ay -Original Message- From: Michael Schmalle [mailto:teotigraphix...@gmail.com] Sent: 12 May 2015 13:28 To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: Falcon progress for as flex sdk I haven't been around for about 2 years, just started checking the commits and things. It seems there really hasn't been any work on the SWF Falcon compiler since about the time Gordon stopped committing changes to MXML. I remember I spent a lot of time studying the code, most all classes I studied and the BURM is just to complicated to just jump in and start doing things. Unless you already have experience with that tech, it's almost a full time job working/learning it. Actually, the BURM in FalconJS is what prompted me to write FalconJX, I just didn't have enough time to learn JBurg and understand everything that was going on. I spent less time writing the whole walker/visitor/compiler framework then the time it would take me to learn JBurg. :) I have a lot of experience with ANTLR and parser/lexers but that is only half of the SWF compiler. Mike On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Glenn Willianms wrote: > Hi folks > > > > Just trying to catch up on what's been happening over the past few > months here > > > > Has there been any progress on Flacon when it comes to standard flex > projects? > > > > Just wanted an update on where we stand right now > > > > Thanks for every ones hard work here > > > > Cheers > > > > glenn > > - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9755 - Release Date: 05/12/15
Falcon progress for as flex sdk
Hi folks Just trying to catch up on what's been happening over the past few months here Has there been any progress on Flacon when it comes to standard flex projects? Just wanted an update on where we stand right now Thanks for every ones hard work here Cheers glenn
RE: [FlexJS] Link to video presentation on FlexJS
I have a spare 4.7 license am I able to transfer it? Not sure but its yours if I am allowed to. -Original Message- From: Michael Schmalle [mailto:teotigraphix...@gmail.com] Sent: 06 May 2015 09:44 To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [FlexJS] Link to video presentation on FlexJS > Do you have a valid license key from before Creative Cloud? Well I was using 4.7 for a year or two and Eclipse/4.7 what I wrote a lot of the FalconJx compiler with! I have my 4.6 license code but I can't find the 4.7 in my account. I guess it doesn't really matter. Mike On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 5/5/15, 3:57 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > > >Alex, I had FlashBuilder 4.7 years ago but, now that it's the > >creative cloud I can't get it. Is there anyway I can get my hands on a > >license? > > Do you have a valid license key from before Creative Cloud? > > > I > >use IntelliJ for AS/Java and as we know I wouldn't even be able to > >test any FlexJS with that right now. > > FlexJS works in FB by pretending to be a Flex SDK. It isn’t perfect > but mostly works. I haven’t tried IntelliJ to see why we can’t fake > it out to some degree. Does anybody know if there are small things we > can do that would make a difference? > > >On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:26 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala > > > > >wrote: > > > >> Okay, I went ahead and sent them a proposal. I think it will be > >>better if there are multiple proposals for talks. > > What did you propose? Maybe we can coordinate and I’ll submit > something too. > > -Alex > > - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4342/9707 - Release Date: 05/06/15
RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK 4.14.1 - RC1
Same here All good -Original Message- From: Mihai Chira [mailto:mihai.ch...@gmail.com] Sent: 24 April 2015 13:09 To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK 4.14.1 - RC1 Just an FYI: we are now compiling our (relatively large) application with this version of the SDK, and things look all right. Good work. On 25 March 2015 at 01:15, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > To save some confusion it might be best to move the LICENSE.xxx and > NOTICE.xxx files out of the root directory and just leave the final > constructed LICENSE and NOTICE files there. (For a future release obviously). > > Justin - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4334/9637 - Release Date: 04/27/15
RE: Squiggly not working
The files in spelling.framework.ui seem to be new versions of the same files in spelling.ui? -Original Message- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: 06 September 2014 05:52 To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: Squiggly not working On 9/5/14 6:33 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >I took a closer look and this may be an issue - a few of the Squiggly >code swcs are smaller than the Adobe ones. > >The Adobe download doesn't include code so it's a bit hard to tell what >may be missing. Alex were any source files omitted from the >ActionScript directories the donation or not checked in from Adobe? I did a little digging. It looks like the main/build.xml is not set up to reproduce the Adobe swcs. IIRC, Squiggly was in beta and undergoing active development for a while after the Adobe bits were posted, so it might be that they were playing around with their packaging and we got something that wasn't meant to be the same. There appears to be one thing that almost has to be a bug, and that is what the OP found, but the rest of the differences may just be different packaging. IMO, the bug is that the SpellingUIEx build makes SpellingUI an external lib, and the problem is that there is a SpellUI in each library. The Adobe version of SpellingUIEx also appears to have classes from AdobeLinguistics duplicated inside the SWC, but the build script says that ApacheFlexLinguisticUtils is external, so either some classes in com.adobe.linguistics shouldn't be in ApacheFlexLinguisticUtils or ApacheFlexLinguisticUtils shouldn't be external. I didn't see any files in my main that isn't in Git so I don't think we're seeing that problem this time. I think the build script needs at least that one tweak. -Alex
RE: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Great I have a largish project im maintaining that uses it and will grab rc0 and see how it goes. Thanks for taking time to get this into good shape glenn -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: 28 August 2014 02:13 To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0 Hi, Please place all of the discussion here rather than in the the thread. Thanks, Justin
flacon: current state of development
HI all I'm back working with flex after 18 months having to write a couple of javaScript based apps and I must say its nice to be back. So here's the thing, I used to be following ever post here daily and was all over the forums etc but know I'm way behind of the current state of play with flex and falcon etc. Can anyone point me to a 'very up to date' overview of where we are now and help get me back up to speed? How are things going with falcon? Could someone give me a recap email me private if this isn't what's wanted in the list thanks folks and looking forward to getting stuck in. there's nothing like 18 months with javaScript to make some really appreciate AS3. Glenn tinylion development
