On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Make does the compile without a problem. :) > > Does it render ? > > YES! :) http://snag.gy/KKqOz.jpg > Frédéric THOMAS > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:54:06 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > > Ok, Fine 2 people say don't worry about it, so I won't. :) > > > > BTW Josh, Fred and I have been working with IntelliJ and this compiles in > > IJ with the FlexJSNightly compiler using the JS.swc as an external > library. > > Make does the compile without a problem. :) > > > > AS > > https://gist.github.com/teotigraphix/ff16e5d404398119358b > > > > JS > > https://gist.github.com/teotigraphix/9e8bbc28f8e0a154ace4. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> AS3 has the same issue as JS when root package and custom packages have > >> classes with the same name. It's just that JS has more things in the > root > >> package. I don't think any special solution is needed. > >> > >> - Josh > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Michael Schmalle < > >> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 6/15/15, 11:16 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>!!!!! Still having things at the root package level is going to cause > >>>>>>problems, I think we need a solution to this, the CustomEvent and > >> Event > >>>>>>ambiguous warnings shows its probably going to mess things up. > >>>>> > >>>>>Can you give me an example? If you are using JS.SWC, what other swc > >> is > >>>>>going to define CustomEvent and Event? Again, the set of SWCs has to > >> be > >>>>>different for different targets. > >>>>> > >>>>>Well it happens if you want to use FlexJS and include DOM calls. Even > >> if > >>>>>you don't want to use SWF, CustomEvent is a DOM event class and at the > >>>>>package level, so in IJ, it can't resolve CustomEvent in the class > >> code > >>>>>without it being qualified org.apache.flex.events.CustomEvent. > >>>> > >>>> OK, I get it now. We can certainly rename > >>>> org.apache.flex.events.CustomEvent. > >>>> > >>>> For org.apache.flex.events.Event, I suppose we could rename it too. I > >>>> have a feeling there would be some issue with doing that, but it > >> doesn’t > >>>> come to mind right now. Another option is revisit using > >>> goog.events.Event > >>>> now that we’ve set the minimum on IE9 (instead of IE8). Maybe we can > >>>> write a simple DOM non-bubbling Event implementation for objects that > >>>> don’t wrap DOM objects. Would having or.apache.flex.events.Event > extend > >>>> Event or somehow map to Event fix the problem? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> This is not a solution though. I only used Event and CustomEvent as an > >>> example because that is what IJ initially complained about in the > >>> DataBindingExample. > >>> > >>> But this would hold true for all package level DOM classes if you had > the > >>> same name with an import statement in your code. > >>> > >>> So it seems, we can't escape the fact these DOM classes need to be in a > >>> package org.apache.flex.dom or something. > >>> > >>> This will complicate everything for me, the emitter will need to have a > >>> transform function to reduce this stuff. Also, this is why I brought up > >> the > >>> JavaScript metadata because if you are using a SWC, there is no asdoc. > >>> > >>> Mike > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -Alex > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
