On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the option of an HTML template would make sense for some > developers. As long as it isn't required. I think a lot of developers will > want to integrate the transpiler into a workflow that involves other tools > that take care of things like HTML, CSS, and images. In the JavaScript > world, the trend has been to choose focused tools that each do one thing > very well. That means that JSC is specifically about producing JS from AS3. > I agree 100% and why a month or so ago I said I would try and get this "vanilla" transpiler working. I really didn't think it would have anything to do with MXML, CSS or HTML. It's also why I see the JSC type having it's own emitter if this takes off. There is stuff that it doesn't need, like MXML that complicates things. I also refactored FlexJS emitter into 10+ classes so that maybe as this side of the project developed, the two could share common expression and statement emitters. It would also be easy then to opt in GCC and it's comments when other want to use their own dependency injects, basically custom compiler hooks/passes. Mike > > - Josh > On Jun 28, 2015 10:03 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/28/15, 1:19 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Thanks again, Alex. I had some time to give it a try it today. The CSS > > >file > > >isn't created, and the classes aren't renamed. That looks good. It still > > >creates an HTML file, though. I'm looking for the only output to be > > >JavaScript. > > > > Ah, sorry, I missed that part. One question though: in the longer term > > would it be better for some tool like the compiler to generate an html > > file from a template like the Flex SDK does today? Isn’t there stuff > that > > should be copied in from the application? > > > > -Alex > > > > >
