Yes, as I understand it, it does. So it would really be inverse of what we're doing. We're stubbing the JS to 'fit' AS. Frank suggests we stub AS to 'fit' the HTML/DOM etc. In his approach the only language anyone - component and application developers alike - would have to write in would be AS.
But as we use Closure on the JS side, we have all the advantages he mentions (packages, classes, interfaces) but one, the IDE support for writing the JS components. For application developers, there is no discussion anyway, AS is the language of choice and there will be plenty of IDE support for FlexJS. So I don't really see a plus in completely changing our approach, and I'm afraid that 'stubbing' AS might be a tad more involved than is suggested by it's casual mention ;-) EdB On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Interesting. But that would require a SWC that stubs the browser APIs? > > On 12/16/13 6:27 AM, "Frank Wienberg" <fr...@jangaroo.net> wrote: > >>Hi Alex, >> >>sorry for the late response. >>I didn't mean to use the same code base for the SWF and the HTML >>components, but only the same programming language: ActionScript! >>Of course you would still have to learn different low-level APIs >>(DisplayList versus browser DOM/BOM), but at least you could use the same >>language and the higher level constructs from AS3 like packages, classes, >>interfaces and the superior IDE support that exists for ActionScript. >> >> >>On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> The implementation of some low-level components will be vastly different >>> for SWF than for JS. I'm not clear how you could generate the JS from >>>the >>> AS version. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 12/10/13 12:13 AM, "Frank Wienberg" <fr...@jangaroo.net> wrote: >>> >>> >Hi, >>> > >>> >great to hear of this new approach! >>> >I never understood why you guys implement Flex components for HTML5 in >>>JS, >>> >not in ActionScript. Once you have AS3 API "stubs" of the browser APIs >>> >(DOM, BOM, remember my suggestions about a [Native] annotation some >>>time >>> >ago?), you would not be limited to building compound components like >>>this, >>> >but you could implement *any* component in AS3, in other words, port >>>your >>> >JS code to AS3! Or is there any show stopper for that with the FalconJx >>> >compiler that I am not aware of? (Maybe the missing [Native] support?) >>> > >>> > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
