Hey Erik, comments are inline:
> The way that TypeScript and Randori/SharpKit integrate with JS is by > > declaring some sort of interface which has exactly > > the same signatures of their JS counterparts. I think this will quite > > probably make the most sense for Apache Flex as well. > > That's what I'm doing, and what I understand from Alex's approach the > same goes for him. I'm building a JS library with the same signature > as the Flex SDK, Alex has started a new AS framework and is building a > complementary JS framework with the same API. > I think you misread what I meant (or I explained it badly, very much possible too). What you're saying is that you're building a JS library that mimics and existing AS3 library. What I meant was the other way around, the use case where we reference an existing JS library from AS3 (therefore my JQuery example). > That's exactly what I've done for the Vanilla SDK: it's a Google > Closure Library supported JS framework that uses a specific cross > compilation implementation in the FalconJx compiler, the 'goog' > emitter. > But that's referring to really cross-compiling a lot of the AS3 paradigms to JS, very low-level stuff which is now hard-coded into the JS emitter. What I was explaining was a way of to make a sort of configurable mapping between AS3 code signatures and an existing JS library. That way we won't have to change the compiler code when we want to support a new JS library. All that needs to be added is some sort of configuration. Or I have totally misunderstood the FalconJx code and this is already possible, if so, I apologize for the confusion and kindly ask you to explain to me how its done exactly. > If we want to gain some traction in the HTML world I strongly believe we > > need to make friends out there :) And what better way of > > making friends than through integrating with them :) > > The VanillaSDK approach does this for the Closure Library and the way > Mike set up make this 'easy'. I've even set up the initial code needed > to implement Frank W's "AMD/RequireJS" approach. > See my comments in the previous block. From what I understand until now your two approaches are both implementations of an emmitter, hence require a change/addition to the compiler framework. > > Please feel free to call me a fool and tell me my idea is crap, because I > > might just be talking out of my ass as usual. :) > > Not a fool at all, and I like your idea so much that I've already > started work on one implementation :-) > > Hope we can work together to make this the future of Flex! > We most certainly will, once we get our misunderstandings out of the way :) I think we both aim for the same things, we just need to find the same wavelengths :) Roland
