> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is JS, the
> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based on
> the fact it wants to produce clean JS.
I'm fine with that approach as the FLEXJS_DUAL output type re-invokes the
compiler after the swf compilation to compile the JS with FLEXJS output type.
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:27:03 -0400
> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is JS, the
> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based on
> the fact it wants to produce clean JS.
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Michael Schmalle <
> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :)
>>>
>>> Oh yes, I don't want to miss that either, big up for you too Mike !!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not kidding myself, there is still a huge amount of work to be done to
>> get it to work correctly based on externals that are more complicated then
>> the ones I did right now. I think I managed to get packages(js namespaces)
>> working but I really haven't tested them.
>>
>> On top of this, the FlexJS emitter needs a bunch of configuration added
>> through it's emitter stage (to not produce GCC comments, inherits etc).
>>
>> What will probably happen is there will just be a JS output type that
>> subclasses the FlexJS emitter and turns everything off, then it's not a
>> rats nest of config arguments.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400
>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
>>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> Great job Fred, so this means we just need the FlexJS SDK and it will
>>> work
>>>> right? Do we still have to setup a library for code completion etc.?
>>>>
>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :)
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand what you did but not sure I could reproduce, I wasn't that
>>>>> far in my experiment but I still miss the complete round trip logic of
>>>>> jBurg, I guess I would need to spend more time on it to get it better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever, that's awesome, we can now compile and debug without any
>>>>> dependencies on the Flex SDK in IntelliJ :-) big up !!
>>>>>
>>>>> I will commit soon what I've done too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>> From: aha...@adobe.com
>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ
>>> Integration
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:19:47 +0000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I think I got it. Try my latest commit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/12/15, 12:41 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>OK, I will work on it. Thanks for trying, it is rather strange stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/12/15, 9:16 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, I've been trying to get why I always get a cost "not feasible"
>>> for
>>>>>>>>your function but I'm failing to understand the logic of jBurg, maybe
>>>>>>>>seing your solution will unligthen me but at the moment I'm totally
>>> in
>>>>>>>>the dark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
