Btw, what happen when you compile JS.swc stuffs in AS ?
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:31:32 +0100
>
>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
