>> Also, have you seen anything that might suggest we can disable IntelliJ's
>> ECMA natives so it uses the JS.swc Object definitions?
>
>
AFAIK, you can't switch to another ECMA file, it is hardcoded for the
Flex Plugin, a simple go to definition on Object and you will see the
lib it depends on, in JS, they did it more flexible, not in Flex.
Can't you change the name with something like JSObject and change it back at
compile time instead ?
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript to
> javascript compile
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:44:06 +0100
>
>
>> Fred, Anything you need help on or questions about the compiler just ask.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Also, have you seen anything that might suggest we can disable IntelliJ's
>> ECMA natives so it uses the JS.swc Object definitions?
>
> AFAIK, you can't switch to another ECMA file, it is hardcoded for the Flex
> Plugin, a simple go to definition on Object and you will see the lib it
> depends on, in JS, they did it more flexible, not in Flex.
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:19:16 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript to
>> javascript compile
>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>
>> Alex, excuse my ignorance but "what" are your plans for integrating this,
>> are you getting the JS.wsc to be built?
>>
>> Fred, Anything you need help on or questions about the compiler just ask.
>>
>> Also, have you seen anything that might suggest we can disable IntelliJ's
>> ECMA natives so it uses the JS.swc Object definitions?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>So, why to generate the .abc and compare its modify date while we can do
>>>>>that with the source file ?
>>>>
>>>> We would compare source file date against .abc file date and then use the
>>>> abc as if it were from a swc and not compile the source file.
>>>
>>> Can't do more on anything today but will follow that path, indeed I guess
>>> I will need yours or Mike's help regarding the compilation itself at some
>>> point.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> From: aha...@adobe.com
>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript to
>>> javascript compile
>>>> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:48:36 +0000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/10/15, 8:36 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Volunteers are welcome to try to fix it. Or implement a whole new
>>>>>> incremental compile strategy. I think I’ve noticed that Java compiler
>>>>>> writes out an .class file and uses file dates to determine whether to
>>>>>> compile again and seems to do that very quickly. I’ve pondered whether
>>>>>> Falcon would get similar gains if we wrote out .abc files.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, it seems the compiler maintains a kind of session between the
>>>>>compilation, how ?
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, the compiler would checksum public APIs and write it to a temporary
>>>> file. The strategy of only re-compiling files affected by public APIs
>>>> changed in other files is interesting, but seemed to be buggy.
>>>>
>>>>>So, why to generate the .abc and compare its modify date while we can do
>>>>>that with the source file ?
>>>>
>>>> We would compare source file date against .abc file date and then use the
>>>> abc as if it were from a swc and not compile the source file.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
