On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > On 7/6/14 9:54 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> I certainly won't stop someone from trying to implement e4x in JS. I > >> think there may already be some attempts. I think a significant number > >>of > >> folks use dot-path like Mark Kessler reported and so it will still be a > >> porting challenge for folks to re-code to using functions. > >> > >> That's why it isn't on my priority list: if you're going to port your > >>e4x > >> dot-path expressions, it might just be better to go to JSON instead. > > > > > >Switching from XML to JSON will require a server side change in most > >scenarios. That might not be an option for folks especially servers that > >they don't have control over. > This is true, but one of the philosophies of FlexJS is "would you have had > to convert anyway?". At least a couple potential FlexJS customers have > already built out JSON backends as they explore which JS migration > strategy to take. It appears that, at least for those folks, the notion > of using XML in JS is too nasty and it is worth the time to change the > backend. > Things like public Atom, RSS feeds do require XML processing. Another scenario is where I wanted to try out my hand at exporting an Adobe Illustrator file to .FXG. Now that the Creative Cloud extensions are HTML(5) based, that seems like a good target for FlexJS. If XML is not supported, this use case is a non-starter. > > For others who really truly can't port the backend, it might be worth the > time to convert from XML to Object, similar to the way the SOAPDecoder and > XMLDecoders work today. XML has always been much slower and memory > intensive in Flash and often folks convert to classes/objects. FlexJS has > support for that already, although there is no generic SOAPDecoder or > XMLDecoder. > I think mx.rpc.xml.SimpleXMLDecoder should lend itself to FlexJS quite well. Not exactly E4X, but at least it brings makes it closer to JSON. What do you think? > > But again, anyone is welcome to take on trying to support e4x in JS. > > -Alex > >
