I have pushed the changes such that JS files now get packaged in the SWCs. See the compile-config.xml files in the new SWC projects to see how it is done. Basically, the include-file directive now takes wildcards.
This now means that a cross-compile only requires one more parameter (-js-output-type=FLEXJS) than a SWF compile. Third parties will be able to deliver a single SWC and adding it to a -library-path should make it work for both SWF and HTML/JS/CSS. For ease of development, you can still use the -sdk-js-lib parameter to point to a folder of JS files so you can skip the SWC packaging step when debugging JS changes. And hopefully it will make FlexJS for friendly to Maven users as well. My next task is to review why we still have classes in the mx package in FlexJS. Early versions of FlexJS used MXMLC for the SWF compile because Flash Builder hooked into MXMLC. Now that we have FB hooking into Falcon, it might be possible to get rid of the “mx” requirements. Hopefully, FB doesn’t have any actual dependencies itself. Once I get through that, I next want to see if I can remove the need for the FlexJS install to download a Flex SDK. And after all that, I’d like to get a release out. Right now, after all of these changes (Object.defineProperty, more swcs, JS co-packaging) a cross-compile spits out a lot of warnings from the Google Closure compiler. I’d welcome any help in getting rid of those warnings. Thanks, -Alex On 4/10/15, 1:46 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Reading this, by that change we would actually get FlexMojos support out >of the box :-) Great stuff! > >I remember the night I had to work through to get the first Flexmojos >FlexJS build up and runnning prior to the Apache EU last year :-) The >main problem was that the SWCs weren't at all different from the >"default" ones and that the structure of the JS stuff was completely >different and monolithic. > >As soon as I have the Mavenizer out the door, That nasty Flexmojos Bug >fixed and my latest changes to the mavenizer reflected in Flexmojos ... >ok ... perhaps I'll stick a few hours in FlexUnit and then I'll be glad >to help get FlexJS on the road :-) > >Chris > >________________________________________ >Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 17:32 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs > >Mike, Fred, > >Thanks for the info. Sounds like you did something more complex than what >I’m thinking, or maybe I’m not considering something. I sure hope it >doesn’t take me 4 months. What were the difficult parts of doing this? > >You can already stick files in a SWC. They are just zip archives. I was >just going to have COMPJSC open the SWC, jam the folder of js files it >created into the SWC and update the catalog.xml. MXMLJSC would open the >SWCs and deploy the JS files to the js-debug output folder. > >I’ll definitely take a closer look at the Randori Bundle code when I >actually get around to this. > >Thanks again, >-Alex > >On 4/10/15, 6:17 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Fred, haha I was JUST ABOUT TO POST THAT LINK! Wow weird! :) >> >>On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Frédéric THOMAS >><webdoubl...@hotmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> Thinking about it, if your goal is to pack up JS and SWCs files >>>together >>> in a resource bundle file and make the compiler to read it, I guess >>>most of >>> this work as been done already around the concept of Resource Bundle >>> Library (.rbl files) in Randori [1], if this matches your needs, I >>>don't >>> think it is hard to pick up. >>> >>> Frédéric THOMAS >>> >>> [1] >>> >>>https://github.com/RandoriAS/randori-compiler/tree/develop/src/test/java >>>/ >>>randori/compiler/bundle >>> >>> > From: christofer.d...@c-ware.de >>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > Subject: AW: [FlexJS] More SWCs >>> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 07:02:24 +0000 >>> > >>> > Hi Alex, >>> > >>> > I was hoping to finish my other stuff sooner and then be able to >>>assist >>> you with this. >>> > As I don't know how long I need to fix one bug in Flexmojos I >>>stumbled >>> over yesterday, I'll write up my whishlist ;-) >>> > >>> > It would be great if a FlexJS archive would contain both the >>> flash-related classes as well as the matching js portions (eventually >>>in a >>> directory "js") so I can change Flexmojos to unpack all "js/**" stuff >>>to a >>> local directory and use that for compiling. Currently I have to add the >>>swc >>> deps normally and add the big fat js-resources archive as a compiler >>> dependency. Bringing both together would be a MAJOR benefit for all >>> "(Better) IDE support" issues out there ;-) >>> > >>> > Chris >>> > >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >>> > Gesendet: Freitag, 10. April 2015 08:05 >>> > An: dev@flex.apache.org >>> > Betreff: [FlexJS] More SWCs >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > As I mentioned in “The Big Rename”, I’m thinking of creating more >>>SWCs. >>> > As I started in on it, it occurred to me that after this refactoring, >>>my >>> > next goal is to try to see if we can pack the JS files into a SWC so >>>the >>> > SWC becomes the single deliverable for a library. Doing so >>>simplifies >>> the >>> > command-line syntax so it is the same for both AS and JS, and I think >>>it >>> > makes it easier for Maven to work with FlexJS SWCs. >>> > >>> > But the question that I came up with is, if we do pack JS in the >>>SWCs: >>> how >>> > many SWCs should there be? For example, right now, for charts, some >>>of >>> > the charts code is in the FlexJSUI SWC and thus has handwritten JS, >>>and a >>> > bunch more code is in the FlexJSJX SWC and the JS is generated by >>> > cross-compiling the AS. >>> > >>> > The easiest thing to do right now is simply carve the chart files >>>from >>> > FlexJSJX into a SWC and the other chart files from FlexJSUI into >>>their >>> own >>> > SWC, but then you have the charting code divided between two SWCs. >>>Maybe >>> > it is better to try to re-work the build scripts and CompC to put all >>>the >>> > chart code in one SWC. What do others think? >>> > >>> > Related, we could make lots of small swcs or fewer bigger ones. What >>>do >>> > folks think of that? There could be a SWC for: >>> > >>> > -Effects >>> > -Collections >>> > -Binding >>> > -Graphics >>> > -HTTPService >>> > -Charts >>> > -Mobile >>> > -Formatters >>> > -DragDrop >>> > -Google Maps >>> > -Jquery >>> > -CreateJS >>> > >>> > And, if we actually have two SWCs (one for cross-compiled code, one >>>for >>> > handwritten JS) that’s a lot of SWCs. >>> > >>> > Anyway, let me know your thoughts, but I’m thinking that lots of SWCs >>> > might be the better route. >>> > >>> > -Alex >>> > >>> >>> >
