> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >>