> 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
It was what I meant :)
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:53:21 -0400
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] Unit test shows full use of pure actionscript to
> javascript compile
> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
