I am not asking you to optimize or anything, but am just curious. Alex's version: http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlexJS/binjs-release/FlexJSTest_again.example.html
loads quite fast, whereas Your version: http://people.apache.org/~erikdebruin/flexjs/ takes quite a while. I notice that your version downloads quite a few files in separate requests whereas Alex's version downloads only one additional file. Is it because yours is a debug version? Sorry for the silly question, I am trying to my bearings straight. Thanks, Om On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > And another update (things are going much better than I expected): > FalconJx can now emit a fully functional version of the > FlexJSTest_again demo application. You can see it in action here > (provided you use Chrome or Firefox, I just noticed): > > http://people.apache.org/~erikdebruin/flexjs/ > > Onwards and upwards ;-) > > EdB > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > > I'd have to look into it for specifics, but of the top of my head it > > seems that this most depends on the implementation in the FlexJS JS > > framework. Emitting the strings required by that framework should > > really be easy enough. If needed we can "look forward" into AST to > > look for binding information. I do this in several other places > > already. Even the binding expressions shouldn't be too much of a > > problem, again depending on how this will be handled by the JS > > framework. > > > > EdB > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> [Bindable] results in extra codegen. Binding expressions with {} is a > whole > >> other ball of work. > >> > >> I think in FalconJX you might have to modify the node tree in several > places > >> when you hit a [Bindable] node. > >> > >> It isn't working correctly in FalconJS either, but my "customer" needs > it so > >> I'm hacking a fix. > >> > >> > >> On 3/27/13 1:28 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: > >> > >>> No, not yet. How is this set up in FlexJS? I'm sure I can read > Metadata and > >>> Databinding information, so I guess it depends on the requirements for > the > >>> emitted JS if I can easily implement this ;-) > >>> > >>> EdB > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, Alex Harui wrote: > >>> > >>>> Does FalconJX handle [Bindable]? My "customer" is using it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 3/27/13 11:56 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Another one popped into my head just now: I have a gut feeling there > >>>>>> is a bit of circular logic going on in the whole 'backend', > >>>>>> 'blockwalker' and 'emitter' construct. More specifically in the way > >>>>>> the references to them are passed around as arguments in the > >>>>>> constructors for the various classes. But I can't wrap around it > well > >>>>>> enough to figure out whether it's wrong and if so, what might be > done > >>>>>> about it. Don't get me wrong, it works well, it's just that it > somehow > >>>>>> isn't "elegant". And that's in no way a comment on the effectiveness > >>>>>> or quality of your code, just something I thought I'd share and see > >>>>>> what you think. > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually I think it works fine. The problem you are facing is with > the > >>>>> MXML emitter I am sure. This adds complexity to what you are trying > to > >>>>> accomplish and it is circular from the perspective of using AS within > >>>>> MXML. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is a buffer writer(output stream), a writer, a visitor and > emitter. > >>>>> > >>>>> Each one takes a dependency of its parent. Trust me, if there is a > >>>>> child that knows about its parent I am blind. Like I said, the block > >>>>> walker is a visitor and the emitter is a visitor. You cannot escape > >>>>> the fact there is recursion. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you can think of a more elegant way to set it up, by all means > >>>>> write a prototype. Remember, I wrote this with an atom bomb under me > >>>>> and lighting in the sky, there may be parts that could be > logicalized. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have another full compiler in Randori that I am going to use as a > >>>>> proof of concept with compiler plugins and my ASDoc compiler I wrote. > >>>>> So I guess we both can experiment, we can agree to leave the core > >>>>> alone for the time being. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> EdB > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> Mike, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Just kidding ;-) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm really happy with FalconJx, once you get to know it it's a > >>>>>>> pleasure to work with. I hope my last commits didn't give you any > >>>>>>> additional work in your other projects? I did my best to leave all > the > >>>>>>> APIs alone. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There are plenty of TODOs in the code, and I would also like to > >>>>>>> suggest some kind of code review or something (I'm not used to > working > >>>>>>> in groups, but that seems like a nice thing to do), since I've been > >>>>>>> piling on stuff. I did my best to keep everything clean and in line > >>>>>>> with the spirit of the rest of the code, but there are some areas > >>>>>>> where I'd like to have a second opinion. Like with the code that is > >>>>>>> copied between the DOC and JS emitters, seems there might be room > for > >>>>>>> improvement there. Also of note is the way I've implemented the AS > >>>>>>> emitting within the MXML emitter, not really sure if I did the > right > >>>>>>> thing there. And finally (not really, but this is all I can think > of > >>>>>>> for now, after the marathon hacking I did today) there is the whole > >>>>>>> "programming to interfaces, not implementations" part that we > nearly > >>>>>>> adhere to, but not quite, we might have another look at that as > well. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> EdB > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Michael Schmalle > >>>>>>> <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> No thats not what I meant. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am saying with the Randori project compiler, I have not had to > >>>> touch the > >>>>>>>> core framework for weeks and it is compiling 1000's of lines of > code. > >>>> And > >>>>>>>> application code now. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What I meant to say was, the design keeps people in the correct > >>>> spaces. :) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Note; I AM SURE there are as3 bugs coming, its just nice not > >>>>>>>> having to chase > >>>>>>>> them right now. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Mike > >>>> Alex Harui > >>>> Flex SDK Team > >>>> Adobe Systems, Inc. > >>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> -- > >> Alex Harui > >> Flex SDK Team > >> Adobe Systems, Inc. > >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ix Multimedia Software > > > > Jan Luykenstraat 27 > > 3521 VB Utrecht > > > > T. 06-51952295 > > I. www.ixsoftware.nl > > > > -- > Ix Multimedia Software > > Jan Luykenstraat 27 > 3521 VB Utrecht > > T. 06-51952295 > I. www.ixsoftware.nl >
