In my opinion, a separate product that is simply an ActionScript to JavaScript transpiler with direct access to browser APIs like the DOM would be a smart idea. It would help establish the idea that ActionScript isn't only for Flash and SWFs. Developers would see that ActionScript can be used similar to TypeScript or CoffeeScript to transpile to JavaScript from a more appealing language. In other words, ActionScript will be shown to be evolving in the same direction as other innovative web technologies.
>From there, I think it would be easier to convince developers to consider the full FlexJS SDK because it can be presented as being built with this same transpiler technology that has already separated itself from being strictly used with Flash. - Josh On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Michael Schmalle < teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fred, I didn't mean to contradict anything you said. I just know the 100's > of hours you rput into the Randori plugin and I don't want to sound like I > am over stepping bounds on anything I say. > > Honestly, I thought the whole Randori thing with IOC and it's easy > framework might actually get used, I had it documented over the span of 5-6 > months I put in about 600+ hours on FalconJX and the whole Randori compiler > and rbl stuff. > > What I am saying is really for my own personal security, for some reason I > thought Randori might actually translate into work, after it failed > miserably and all the hours I had invested, I seriously was about to quit > programing and dig ditches. :) > > I know the whole open source mantra, but it would be nice to work on > something that gets used by people. FlexJS is another question mark because > on top of the technology transforming things and not just HTML/JS > framework, you have to wipe the idea out of peoples head this IS NOT Flash > and Adobe, it's ActionScript and MXML, a design pattern, just like all the > other frameworks an automated tools out there for JavaScript currently. > > Anyway. > > Mike > > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > Well, it seems the in last 2 answers (Mike and myself), there is a > > contradiction, actually there is not, there are only few scenarios for > > IntelliJ IMO > > > > - We don't do anything particular and we use FlexJS as a lib on top of > the > > Flex SDK an we have a not user friendly setup as we've seen recently. > > > > - We overlay ourself the FlexJS SDK on top of the FlexSDK, we deliver it > > like that and make think IJ that's a flex SDK (that was a bit my previous > > answer), in this case, we could have I guess most of the IDE goodies > > working, not ideal at all but better. > > > > - We create a Facet for the Flex SDK and this facet does the job of > > overlaying the FlexSDK with FlexJS an plug the FlexJS compilation > workfow, > > etc.. into the IDE, create some wizards, etc..., that still means the > user > > will create a Flex Project before applying the facet though > > > > - We create a Facet for the FlexMojo in the same way Jangaroo does for > its > > maven plugin and this facet take care of the FlexJS compilation workfow > into > > the IDE, create some wizards, etc..., that still means the user will > > create a Maven Project before applying the facet though > > > > - We don't base anything on the FlexSDK, we need a plugin like Randori. > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 12:53:46 -0400 > > > Subject: Re: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > > > @Alex > > > > > > https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-116986 > > > > > > Been there, done that. > > > > > > > BTW, I would hope that better integration with IntelliJ doesn’t > > require a > > > whole Randori-like plug in. > > > > > > Considering how much time Fred etal put into that "project", I doubt > > there > > > is enough time to get even close to what we had. > > > > > > It's not a question of if you should, it's something that speeds up > > > development. I agree in one respect that before I spent any time on an > > > extras for workflow enhancement, the framework needs to be used by more > > > than the developers, my total mistake with the whole Randori project. > > > > > > I'm not making any mistakes this time because I am using my hobby time, > > > psychologically it's different for me that it's just a fun thing to do > > > right now. I needed a little project that would challenge my mind and > > > programming skills compared to what I do on mobile right now, it's just > > > plain work. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/15/15, 9:03 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >It was a revert of the previous commit because I used IntelliJ the > > code > > > > >cleanup function which touched all the files, the following commit > > > > >59659f7cc66a20a9450d4a3117a5f999f1fa41c7 shows that only DebugCLI > and > > > > >Extensions was touched. > > > > > > > > > >In this case, it could be that because the IJ Flex Plugin reconized > > the > > > > >FlexJS SDK as a Flex SDK, it applied a fix it had for FDB that > wasn't > > in > > > > >correlation with the last version because it couldn't determinate > it. > > > > > > > > Ah yes, I see that now. I wonder if there is some other explanation > > for > > > > the FaultActions exception? The window where FaultActions was > changed > > was > > > > small. Anyway if folks have it working then it doesn’t matter. > > > > > > > > BTW, I would hope that better integration with IntelliJ doesn’t > > require a > > > > whole Randori-like plug in. Falcon should be able to swap in for > MXMLC > > > > with fewer changes. > > > > > > > > I did notice that Alexander Doroshko is watching the FDB bug. I was > > going > > > > to suggest to you that you put in a comment on that bug asking him to > > > > participate on this thread. Or didn’t somebody file a feature > request > > in > > > > IntelliJ’s bug base asking for FlexJS support? Maybe we should put > in > > a > > > > comment on there. > > > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
