Re: Bug in mxmlc script

Ah, I see what's happening. If I change the SDK by selecting 'Use a specific SDK', it warns me about overwriting the html-template files. But, if I keep the 'Use default SDK' but change the default SDK in the 'Configurie Flex SDK's screen, then there is no such warnings. The new default SDK is

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 1/5/16, 1:07 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" > wrote: > > >On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> > >>

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On 1/5/16, 1:07 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >> IIRC, if you change SDKs, it will copy the index.template.html file from >> the SDK

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On Jan 5, 2016, at 7:05 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > > I don't understand. If you customize your index.html.template, how does > it matter if the app.html file gets destroyed and recreated each time? > This is how I have it setup. I don’t remember. Possibly I did

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On Jan 5, 2016 3:03 AM, "Harbs" wrote: > > It’s not just for instant gratification. (and I do agree that first impressions are really important) > > In the ideal world, the template HTML file can be modified. The primary reason I have not historically modified the HTML

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

asjsc still generates all of the addDependency() calls required for a debug build. No hand crafting needed. It generates them in a JS file named ProjectName-dependencies.js. Not coincidentally, that is the only JS file that you need to reference in a script tag in your HTML when running the debug

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

I should add that a "main" class shouldn't necessarily be required to have a static method as its entry point. A developer might prefer to instantiate it with the constructor instead. A FlexJS framework app can (and should!) be opinionated, but asjsc needs to be flexible, as a more generic

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On 1/5/16, 9:49 AM, "Harbs" wrote: > >On Jan 5, 2016, at 7:05 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala >wrote: > >> >> I don't understand. If you customize your index.html.template, how >>does >> it matter if the app.html file gets destroyed and recreated each

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

asjsc does not generate an index.html file, so you must be looking at the output of mxmlc. Today, asjsc outputs a JS file that lists the dependencies, as I described. They're the exact same addDependency() calls that you'd see in mxmlc's index.html. - Josh On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM,

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On Jan 5, 2016 9:36 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote: > > asjsc still generates all of the addDependency() calls required for a debug > build. No hand crafting needed. It generates them in a JS file named > ProjectName-dependencies.js. Not coincidentally, that is the only JS file >

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 1/5/16, 9:49 AM, "Harbs" wrote: > > > > >On Jan 5, 2016, at 7:05 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala > >wrote: > > > >> > >> I don't understand. If you customize your

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On 1/5/16, 1:06 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Jan 5, 2016 9:36 AM, "Josh Tynjala" wrote: >> >> asjsc still generates all of the addDependency() calls required for a >debug >>

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On 1/4/16, 4:09 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >In the flexjs/js/bin/mxmlc script, I see that we are referencing the ' >*/frameworks/js/FlexJS/src*' folder. This folder is intended as the place for folks to

Bug in mxmlc script

In the flexjs/js/bin/mxmlc script, I see that we are referencing the ' */frameworks/js/FlexJS/src*' folder. java $VMARGS $D32 $SETUP_SH_VMARGS -Dflexcompiler="$FALCON_HOME" -Dflexlib="$FLEX_HOME/frameworks" -jar "$SCRIPT_HOME/../lib/mxmlc.jar" +flexlib="$FLEX_HOME/frameworks"

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

I think I get it. I thought that the source code for js.swc was in $FLEX_HOME/frameworks/js/FlexJS/src. I guess that is not true? The original problem was that asjsc does not create the index.html file. I was asked to use mxmlc for that. (Refer to the npm install flexjs thread) When I used

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

On 1/4/16, 5:14 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> If you diff asjsc vs mxmlc you'll see the difference. >> > >This is the difference I

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

Well, the compiler could be upgraded to process a template like Flash Builder currently does. I'm curious to know how many folks use Flash Builder and/or Ant tasks to process the html templates for SWFs vs plugging in some custom thing in their workflow. But IMO, the main reason to have an

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

I should add that I'm not opposed to adding some kind of optional flag to asjsc that tells it to generate an HTML file similar to how mxmlc does it. That HTML file just doesn't seem especially useful to me, as I consider what it would be like to use asjsc in a real-world project. So I'm trying to

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

If you diff asjsc vs mxmlc you'll see the difference. IMO, I wouldn't call a new script mxmlcnpm because others may want an auto generated hmtl as well. Give it a more generic name. -Alex On 1/4/16, 4:28 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

Is it actually necessary for the compiler to create some kind of boilerplate HTML for you? It may be a little useful for quick demos, I'll concede, but many real world projects will need highly customized HTML files. Many need things like analytics, CSS, and other static HTML content that isn't

Re: Bug in mxmlc script

I use FB for browser based apps but I dislike how it overwrites the template when switching SDK versions. IIRC FB hard codes the template to "index.template.html". So it always gets overwritten. I think it should come with a default template file but let you specify your own template through a