Just to clarify some stuff, since this is my "first day back on the job after a week long sick leave which was supposed to a ski vacation" (and I'm a bit cranky still as a result... I really shouldn't be in public) and I need to get back up to speed on our lovely project:
> You don't need to test anything, I haven't committed them yet. Well... I need to test everything before committing, so my changes don't break the code base... at least, that's what I was told earlier on in the process ;-) > As far as asking about methods, what I added made sense and should have made > sense to you by them being overridable. I mean; The aren't overridden in the code that I have access to, as it isn't in SVN. Or I wouldn't have been able to remove them and still have the code on my side compile and all tests pass. > Should be pretty clear they were hooks to add sources and SWCs to compile > against. I want to say "clear as mud", but that might be a too little negative :-) I didn't see any implementation, so I wasn't able to infer functionality. 'Nuf said, moving on. I apologize if the above sounds defensive of unconstructive, I am really only trying to understand. > Since we are generating JS we need context sometimes when producing stuff > like method scope, it's not a straight forward 'unit' test in this case. I was already figuring that 'AMD' would be a bit more involved than 'goog'. The code Frank suggests for AMD isn't as straight forward a translation from AS to JS as 'goog', as it seems to me to require a lot more "memory/state" from the compiler. I hope I'm wrong and this isn't the case, and you'll be soon ready to give MXML another shot. I hope to bring Alex's FlexJS frameworks and approach to FalconJx, so we can move forward with only one JS compiler to "worry" about :-) EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
