Yup, Erik's matches my binjs-debug version.
On 3/28/13 11:49 AM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> -- Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe Systems, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
