> FWIW, in the FlashBuilder/Falcon integration, I’ve blocked incremental > compiles, at least for now. Besides there were plenty of bugs in the > incremental compilation.
With randori, I've was passing only the files to recompile, I won't be able to do that here at least for now but maybe @Mike remember if he did something particular for this in the Randori compiler ? > If we’re lucky, IJ just uses an Mxmlc class to call its main() or mxmlc() > method with command-line args and you can just pass them to the Falcon > Mxmlc class. Ii is also calling processConfiguration before to call Mxmlc, I know it is not done by the same Classes now but add to accept the call and at the moment I return null but don't know if I do well. Thanks, Frédéric THOMAS > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 15:00:52 +0000 > > FWIW, in the FlashBuilder/Falcon integration, I’ve blocked incremental > compiles, at least for now. Besides there were plenty of bugs in the > incremental compilation. > > It looks like (in the flex-sdk repo) > modules/compiler/src/java/flex2/tools/Mxmlc.java is a command-line entry > point for the compiler. When I was hacking flex-oem-compiler for Falcon, > I would take a class like that from the flex-sdk repo, add it to Falcon’s > flex-oem-compiler and comment out the bodies of the methods and then try > to figure out what FB was really looking for and then make the required > calls to Falcon to make it happen. The problem is that some imports in > some of these files bring in a ton of other files that we don’t want to > support in Falcon since they do similar things in MXMLC. > > If we’re lucky, IJ just uses an Mxmlc class to call its main() or mxmlc() > method with command-line args and you can just pass them to the Falcon > Mxmlc class. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > BTW, I finally got a new Windows computer and have plans to install IJ, > FlashDevelop and FDT on it, but other things are currently taking higher > priority. > > > > On 5/22/15, 6:39 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Hi Alex, > > > >Well, as per [1], I thought we would have keep the same feature for > >Falcon. > > > >And In IntelliJ, as per their doc, you can select which of the available > >Flex compilers should be used: > > > >1- Built-in compiler shell. An > > IntelliJ IDEA compiler shell which uses the Flex SDK > > compiler API. > > > > > > > >This compiler shell can perform incremental > > compilations. As a multithreaded shell, it is > >capable of > > running a number of compilations simultaneously, in > > parallel. > > > > > >2- Mxmlc/compc: Compiler > > available in Flex SDK > > > >This compiler cannot compile incrementally. However, it > > can run several independent compilation processes > > simultaneously which significantly improves the > > compilation performance. > > > > > >Whichever of the compiler options you use, IntelliJ IDEA > > keeps track of the modules where nothing has changed > >since > > the previous compilation. Consequently, the SWF and SWC > > files that are up-to-date are not compiled. > > > > > > > > > >Selecting the 2nd option and trying to build a project, I can see all the > >failed calls to the flex-compiler-oem and it uses CompilerAPI, Mxmlc and > >I guess Compc for libs. > > > >Will try to do my best with the low knowlegde I've got on the Compiler. > > > >Thanks, > > > > > > > >Frédéric THOMAS > > > >[1] > >http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Flex/4.0/CompilerAPI/flex_4.0_compilerapi.pdf > > > >> From: aha...@adobe.com > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > >> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 17:18:26 +0000 > >> > >> > >> > >> On 5/21/15, 9:58 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >@Alex, > >> > > >> >I've been playing a bit with the flex-compiler-oem that intellij can > >>use, > >> >I started to add the functions it expects but I had to stop and ask > >>you, > >> >why it doesn't contains things like Mxmlc anymore, that IntelliJ uses ? > >> > >> Well, Falcon is supposed to replace Mxmlc. My goal with Falcon’s > >> flex-compiler-oem was to use as few classes from the SDK’s MXMLC as > >> possible so we don’t have to maintain them going forward in Falcon and > >> make the APIs call what was needed in Falcon to get Flash Builder to > >>work. > >> > >> It sounds like IntelliJ decided to use other APIs in flex-compiler-oem. > >> Hopefully you can implement what it needs by calling Falcon code without > >> dragging too much more of the old MXMLC into the Falcon code-base. > >> > >> -Alex > >> > >> > > >
