Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 3/1/16, 3:43 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > > > >The problem as you have stated is there are multiple threads running and I > >can't just go in a rip stuff apart. I don't see why the if

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On 3/1/16, 3:43 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: >The problem as you have stated is there are multiple threads running and I >can't just go in a rip stuff apart. I don't see why the if blocks of the >children as data can't be separated. To me that would make things

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

Yeah when I was speaking about a backend I didn't mean as verbose as the js backends. I just meant when compiling for say Feathers, why have code even close to anything Flex SDK. There is a line between MXML AST and Flex styles, effects, design layer... ehe... The problem as you have stated is

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On 3/1/16, 3:17 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > >In my ignorant view right now I would say the goal is to make the MXML >compiler have a backend for the framework API hooks, this would be correct >in my head, the right way to direct. Well, better abstraction is

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 3/1/16, 2:32 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> >What does -mxml-children-as-data actually do? Does it output something? > >> > >> It tells the compiler to generate these data

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On 3/1/16, 2:45 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > >> That's a valid approach as well, but probably has the overhead of >>wrapping >> a lot

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

Alex, I think you have known me long enough o see where I am headed with this. I agree with everything you have said and it's more of a conceptual issue with me right now. I have definitely proven to myself that once I figure out the actual problem I can usually solve it pretty quick. I guess

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On 3/1/16, 2:32 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: >> >> > >> >What does -mxml-children-as-data actually do? Does it output something? >> >> It tells the compiler to generate these data structures and API calls >> instead of generating the Flex SDK code that MXMLC does.

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On 3/1/16, 2:30 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: >Hey Om, > >This is all purely hypothetical in my head right now so I may be missing >something as well but the first goal is to use Feathers out right, that >means hooking into Josh's classes. I think that's the key.

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > That's a valid approach as well, but probably has the overhead of wrapping > a lot of their classes to conform to IUIBase. Do you mean work overhead? That would be a one time thing, right? Or runtime overhead? I doubt if

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

That's a valid approach as well, but probably has the overhead of wrapping a lot of their classes to conform to IUIBase. You would probably get a lot of other things like Binding and States for free though. -Alex On 3/1/16, 2:16 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 3/1/16, 2:08 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: > > >Hmm, interesting. There are a couple things here I misinterpreted from my > >journey through the code a couple years ago. > > > >It's great to

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

Hey Om, This is all purely hypothetical in my head right now so I may be missing something as well but the first goal is to use Feathers out right, that means hooking into Josh's classes. He does use a Bootstrap class to start the app and that is what you are talking about with Application, that

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

On 3/1/16, 2:08 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote: >Hmm, interesting. There are a couple things here I misinterpreted from my >journey through the code a couple years ago. > >It's great to hear that there are no dependencies, I think one major thing >Josh had to do was

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

If I may, there might be a better approach by just doing it within the FlexJS framework. You should be able to create a org.apache.flex.starling.Application.as class where a starling display list is used instead of the regular display list. You can follow the pattern that the

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

Hmm, interesting. There are a couple things here I misinterpreted from my journey through the code a couple years ago. It's great to hear that there are no dependencies, I think one major thing Josh had to do was mangle how Event was handled since MXMLC required flash.events.Event for bindings.

Re: Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

I don't know what Josh did to MXMLC to get it to work for Starling/Feathers. I have encouraged him in the past to try to work directly with the Falcon output. IMO, MXMLC should be abandoned. Falcon supposedly has no real ties to any particular ActionScript framework. MXMLC generated code that

Forking the Falcon compiler for Starling/Feathers MXML generation

Would I even need to fork it? I mentioned to Josh that I use MXML and Feathers extensively for these audio apps I am about to release on Android which means I have a high stake in the tech at the moment. That tinkerer side of me feels I could do something about this but I am at a loss of what I