On 3/30/13 10:39 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Alex, just checking before I spend too much time on this: with FlexJS, is
> it always going to be "your way or the highway"?
I don't think so. What gave you that impression? If it was the tone of my
last post, I apologize. I am actually trying to start a discussion on
technical merits.
I do have a particular point of view. I am a code minimalist. I watched
the current SDK get fatter and slower with all of this just-in-case code,
and have helped dozens of folks try to optimize their apps after they wrote
or added rich and powerful libraries and application frameworks that they
didn't actually need. I definitely want to try to avoid that.
I like to think I am open to input from others, but I am going to ask why
your choice is the best choice. When you suggested moving to base.js, I
looked at that file and didn't see any obvious reason to not use it, and we
are.
If I had opened up the events folder in google closure library and it was
one 10K file, I wouldn't have even looked inside it, but it was 41K and
required a whole bunch of other files, and then I saw that the API was
different from DOM Events. I haven't tried it yet, but I still think it
will not take that much code to handle IE8. I know you're busy this week,
so my trying to hack IE8 might show me the excellence of Google's library.
Sorry if I seem too obstinate. I definitely need everyone's help and input.
-Alex
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 31, 2013, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> I read up a little on Google Closure Events. I was hoping to find some
>> information on why it takes that much javascript to implement a brand new
>> event model when it appears (at least from my perspective) that the only
>> rogue browser is IE8.
>>
>> I think I'm going to forge ahead with my custom approximation of events in
>> IE8 and maybe I'll discover why Google Closure Events are better. I would
>> rather use a DOM Events API surface since that's what AS has and folks are
>> used to.
>>
>>
>> On 3/30/13 9:15 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> From [1]: "Closure Library provides the advantage of a consistent
>>> event model that works the same way in all browsers."
>>>
>>> And the GC Compiler takes care of any overhead, it can very
>>> efficiently re-compile "goog" based Javascript. More so than "manual"
>>> JS like FlexGlobals. And we're using the GC Library anyways.
>>>
>>> I plan to look at the "insides" of FlexJS Javascript code next week,
>>> see what I can come up with. Maybe start a branch, we can do that
>>> easily now in git :-P
>>>
>>> EdB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com<javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/30/13 7:54 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I left out FlexGlobals on purpose, I plan to bring the Google Closure
>>>>> way of dealing with events to FlexJS. The GC way is not dependent on
>>>>> DOM based events and fits very snugly with the way Flex handles
>>>>> events.
>>>> BTW, do we need a DOM event for MouseEvents?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I was going to work on IE8 compatibility soon. Does Google
>> Closure
>>>> events work well on ie8? How much overhead is there for using it?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>
>>
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
