On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as packages go, I think if a class is top-level in JavaScript, it
> should be the same in ActionScript. At least by default.
>
>
I only added the dom because I wasn't really thinking about it.
What about local name collisions with users Actionscript? We should just
not care?
Mike
> - Josh
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/4/15, 9:53 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Yeah to be honest my main concern was these SWCs. When I started testing
> > >the emitter for DOM stuff like I showed the other day, I couldn't
> > >"believe"
> > >in it because I was using the Randori stuff.
> > >
> > >Now with this, the first step is actually real and under the project's
> > >control, all of it.
> > >
> > >1. I'm going to use packages, what should the package be for the DOM.swc
> > >and JS.swc(was builtin.swc)?
> >
> > If you mean the AS package for the classes in these SWCs, I have to admit
> > I was a bit surprised to see in the AS output example that Document in a
> > “dom” package. I would think these two SWCs would not have their classes
> > in any AS package (IOW, “package {“). Aren’t classes like Document
> > effectively global just like Math?
> >
> > >2. I am using Rhino and QDox(hack for getting an easy parser for the
> > >jsdocs), so I guess a download jar entry is going to have to be added to
> > >the build script? I am not good at ant.
> >
> > Rhino 1.74 or later is MPL. If we don’t need an earlier version then yes
> > we can download it and Qdox (which is AL). Just check in code that uses
> > these jars (but not the jars) and I’ll get the build scripts to download
> > them.
> >
> >
> > >3. How is the source files going to be handled for the extern files?
> > >Download them during build and then run the tool?
> >
> > IMO, yes. But we might bundle them in the source release package.
> >
> > >4. I think I am going to utilize that JavaScript metadata tag for these
> so
> > >it's easy to resolve stuff during compile.
> >
> > I guess that’s ok with me. Why do you not want to introduce new metadata
> > keywords and/or use asdoc similar to how goog is using jsdoc? I’d worry
> > about a JavaScript metadata statement getting longer and longer as we add
> > more attributes to it. Having each attribute be a keyword or asdoc/jsdoc
> > tag seems like it would be more manageable?
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
