> As our JS output is basically immutable, I think these discussions are
> missing the point and feel like trying to second guess the machine
> code/assembly that this JS basically is.
In What language, the debugging and the tests are supposed to be done, AS3 or
JS ?
> When properly annotated, the GCC warns or throws an error if the code seems
> to access 'privileged' members, but I'd guess that the AS compiler does the
> same, so why worry?
/**
* @private
*/
Main.prototype.start = function() {
HtmlContainer.load([Main.JQUERY_SCRIPT], Main.run);
};
This is called without any Error from the html: new Main().start();
Do you know why it doesn't work for my private start() ?
What about protected methods ? can
myClassExtendsObjectInstance["myProtectedMethodFromClassA"]() is supposed throw
an Error ?
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> From: e...@ixsoftware.nl
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:59:00 +0200
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX FlexJS] JQuery up and running, a nightmare but we now
> have 1.9 in AS
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Yeah, but that is a very, very different design pattern and would require
> substantial work on the transpiler to make that output possible. It would
> also, I believe, be incompatible with the way the GCC optimizes (not
> minimize, mind you) the code, so that advantage would be lost as well.
>
> As our JS output is basically immutable, I think these discussions are
> missing the point and feel like trying to second guess the machine
> code/assembly that this JS basically is.
>
> When properly annotated, the GCC warns or throws an error if the code seems
> to access 'privileged' members, but I'd guess that the AS compiler does the
> same, so why worry?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:45 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 25, 2015 8:07 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/25/15, 8:02 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ah ok. That’s probably a bug. Not sure why, but the emitters currently
>>>>> initialize private members in the constructor. We discussed on some
>>>>>other
>>>>> thread a while back that this shouldn’t be necessary except for
>>>>>non-scalar
>>>>> initializers, so probably we should try to change this someday.
>>>>
>>>>Initializing methods in the constructor via myPrivateMethod = function()
>>>>{) will make it private but public instance methods not initialized in
>>>>the constructor won't be able to access it, public methods which aim to
>>>>access private methods need also to be declared in the contructor (eg.
>>>>"this.myPublicMethod = function() {return myPrivateMethod())")
>>>
>>> Really? I wasn’t aware of that. I didn’t think JS had any access
>>> protection at all.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>But do we need to replicate the AS3 NS behaviour in JS (public, private,
>>>>protected, custom NS) ?
>>>>
>>>>Has it been already discussed ?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure, my first answer would be no as the the developer will
>>>>develop in AS3 but if the code to be tested is the JS, I would answer
>>>>yes, we must reproduce what AS3 promises, the public, protected, private
>>>>and custom NS for classes and instances.
>>>
>>> I thought everything in JS was effectively public, that there was no
>>> access protection. But we are currently using Google Closure Compiler to
>>> minify all of the JS (and will probably always have a way for folks to
>>> choose to use it) and I think Erik says that proper use of @private helps
>>> the minifier.
>>>
>>> I’m not sure how we’d handle custom namespaces.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>
>> In Javascript we can create public, private and privileged variables,
>> using closures.
>>
>> http://javascript.crockford.com/private.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
