On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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. > Well yeah, I know that is why I asked. Well that is one thing that sucks but I guess we would need to make an object proxy class that gets treat special in the compiler if people wanted to use things such as Object.create(). Mike > > 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >
