On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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 :) > Word, I am thinking about it more, it's doable but not easy. :) I have to still have Object for COMPC to be happy but, I am sure I can get it to work, since IntelliJ will only care about what extends JSObject and discard my Object definition. Mike > > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
