On 5/29/15, 2:35 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ok,
>
>I am at a point where I have some time to spend getting this "vanilla"
>compiler working.
>
>Since this stuff really confuses me, it's not my game. :)
>
>Just base my output for now on the utilities that FlexJS uses?
>
>goog.provide()
>goog.require()
>goog.inherits()
>
>
>Object.defineProperties(org_apache_flex_html_CheckBox.prototype, {
>});
>
>
>???????
Yes. Really, I think you can just use the FlexJS backend. Then once you
see how it works maybe it will be more clear where you switch stuff out
for other dependency and inheritance patterns.
>
>
>I guess for now I am just going to emulate what you are doing Alex.
>Package
>names and everything, I can't see coming up with something when there are
>about 3 people in the conversation.
>
>I guess this way you and Peter will have something that directly
>translates.
>
>I don't have to use the GCC for anything using this stuff right? Since
>it's
>all under the hood, I am just thinking it can change down the road and I
>just want to move forward.
Yes, the GCC plugs in after all the transpiling. See
MXMLFlexJSPublisher.java. It serves mostly as a minifier, but it does
catch errors in our hand coded JS. But its usefulness for the latter
might go down significantly if all of our JS is transpiled from FalconJX.
-Alex
