On 8/11/15, 6:37 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> but no objection if that’s what folks want.
>
>My first reaction when it comes to a public, is to offer a consistent,
>safe and clear API but I'm open to anything too.
I think the definition of consistent and safe might have some trade-offs.
The resulting production code still needs to be small and fast so I tend
to prefer solutions where you can remove development-time checking you
don’t need I production.
Also, another point I just remembered is MXML. I don’t know that
MouseButton would actually show up in MXML attribute values but for other
things it might be better to use simple String constants and do extra
checking inside so your MXML looks like:
<sometag someAttribute=“someValue” />
Instead of
<sometag someAttribute=“{SomeClass.someValue}” />
Or
<sometag someAttribute=“{new UtilityClass(‘someValue’))}”
At least for now until someone figures out how to get the compiler to
optimize out the binding expression. I’ve always wished we could do:
<sometag someAttribute=“SomeClass.someConst” />
>
>Btw, I noticed the package, class and Object.defineProperties comments
>are not copied to the generated JS, so neither the Apache header, is that
>an issue ?
>
>see: https://gist.github.com/doublefx/20b7949d3b9ff20daaa1
Generated code is not “source” so it won’t be in the source package or
repo and thus doesn’t have to have a header, but we might want to add one
anyway so it looks more official.
-Alex
