In my simple mind, Falcon generates the AST then at some point in time the futures task for that compilation unit is asked for output. Current Falcon code calls the BURM which eventually calls an emitter, I'm assuming FalconJX does an AST tree walk instead of calling the BURM. There is no reduction, just emitting. CSS for JS is probably just going emit text from the tree.
On 3/15/13 1:44 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > BTW, > > I have not seen one thing that you are asking for that doesn't contain > an AST and node framework in the Falcon package. > > If it was me, I would create all the emitters exactly the same way be > parsing the file, handling the AST, traversing it while outputting to > the target, then writing it in its file format. > > Its simple and I guess the FalconJx framework is mainly due to me > dealing with inheritance and dependency madness with Flex components > for years. I said all my future projects will use composition, this > one does big time. > > Mike > > Quoting Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>: > >> >> Quoting Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/15/13 1:14 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The problem is, SWF is so >>>> interconnected in the generator packages that you might have a problem >>>> getting a polarity with using the BURM. >>> Don't know what "polarity" meant, but hopefully it doesn't really matter. >> >> Bad word, I meant polarity in emitters as what the BURM generators >> offer right now with FalconJS, properties, css, as, mxml. >> >> >>>> On that note; This would take more study to fully understand, but at >>>> the moment I don't have time to investigate. I guess you will have to >>>> weigh the options or get a "feel" for the Falcon framework when your >>>> not under as much of a timeline/deadline? >>>> >>>> That being said, the FalconJx framework was meant to be created in >>>> component sections, so if your end goal is to create things with it >>>> fully, I would suggest things being ported to its emitter, or it will >>>> for ever have a crutch on SWF. >>>> >>> Good point about the generators being tied to SWF constructs. But I am >>> assuming you that, in order to service different file types we will have >>> several emitters? One for AS, one for MXML/AS? I think I will create one >>> for CSS and someone will create one for FXG->SVG? And since these two >>> probably won't generate JS "classes", I think they won't be tied to the SWF >>> constructs in the generator and thus will copy over "easily". >> >> Right, if I was getting paid for this stuff, I could have most of it >> done in a month or two, so using the pattern I have created with >> FalconJx all your emitters with file handlers are possible. >> >> To realize what you need Alex, the knife is already built, its just >> adding the blades. >> >> Mike >> >>> -- >>> Alex Harui >>> Flex SDK Team >>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC >> http://www.teotigraphix.com >> http://blog.teotigraphix.com >> >> -- Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe Systems, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
