Hi,

 

Ran the following tests :

 

1) Firefox (V14.0.1) - works         (see pic below)



 

Issues :  

1)      I found is that when you 'rapidly' click on the radio box 'text' in
quick succession, 'sometimes' the correct radio box does not get selected. 

Example below - GREEN selected (and highlighted), but radio box not
activated.

 



2)      Clicking on the OK button takes some time before a value appears in
the text box. Note sure what is coded behind the OK button (if it is
fetching a value from web and returning value)

 

 

2) IE (V9.0.8112) - does not work  (see pic below)



                - Get "undefined" above OK button and in Text box

                - Radio and Check box are selectable

                - Button's are unresponsive

                - Clicking on AAPL, etc does not push value to text box

 

Regards,

 

Sugan Naicker

South Africa

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl] 
Sent: 28 March 2013 06:24 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [FalconJx] progress update

 

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/>
http://people.apache.org/~erikdebruin/flexjs/

 

Onwards and upwards ;-)

 

EdB

 

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Erik de Bruin < <mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl>
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 < <mailto:aha...@adobe.com>
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" < <mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl>
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" <
<mailto:apa...@teotigraphix.com> apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote:

>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>> Quoting Erik de Bruin < <mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl>
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 

>>>>>> < <mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl> 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 

>>>>>>> < <mailto:apa...@teotigraphix.com> 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> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui

>>>> 

>>>> 

>> 

>> --

>> Alex Harui

>> Flex SDK Team

>> Adobe Systems, Inc.

>>  <http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> --

> Ix Multimedia Software

> 

> Jan Luykenstraat 27

> 3521 VB Utrecht

> 

> T. 06-51952295

> I.  <http://www.ixsoftware.nl> www.ixsoftware.nl

 

 

 

--

Ix Multimedia Software

 

Jan Luykenstraat 27

3521 VB Utrecht

 

T. 06-51952295

I.  <http://www.ixsoftware.nl> www.ixsoftware.nl

Reply via email to