On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> 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 ? > The problem with this is for natural flow, everything extends Object. So for a normal object incode, you would not get what JSObect was. Do you get what I mean? We can make a JSObject but in IntelliJ, it will not be the base class of everything. HAHAHA Damn, I just had a brain flash, I I rewrote the compiler to have everything that is a base extend JSObject, it would work in IntelliJ! haha Mike > > 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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
