Hi, > My main problem with using Closure is that it introduces a second parsing > and manipulation > pass while, IMHO, all of the necessary work can be done inside Falcon since > all necessary > information is contained within the AST. Therefore implementing the whole > shebang inside > Falcon will be faster.
The goal is to move the functionality that is currently in the ant script into FalconJx. After all, it's just 2 calls to a Python script and some file manipulation. As to the 'second pass': that will always be needed, as the Falcons are compilers, not optimisers. It has been discussed and dismissed that we would write our own JS optimiser; there are so many excellent ones available all over the place. Using the Closure Compiler gives us the added advantage of doing an actual re-compile of the JS, instead of plain optimisation. This means that it can achieve incredibly efficient and small code. Please look at the 'release' output from my proof of concept. > Plus it removes a dependency, which is always good, > again IMHO. How is replacing Closure for RequireJS removing a dependency? > The fact that your requireJS approach is also asynchronous is a big boon as > well. It means > an application could be loaded incrementally much easier, and from what I > understand > incredibly granular. The same goes for Closure. Please look at my previous email for more on this particular topic. > Anyways, I have some thoughts about the actual implementation of all of > this, but I'm gonna Again, I like the approach you mention as an excellent addition to the future of Flex. I don't mind (much ;-)) that you prefer one solution over another. What I do mind is when the choice is made based on faulty information. This email is merely intended to put to rest some of the FUD that seems to be going around about Closure. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
