The problem with expecting externs files to be packaged into the SWC is that they might not exist. For instance, if I've converted a TypeScript definition to ActionScript, I won't have an externs file to add to the SWC.
- Josh On Oct 20, 2015 11:46 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 10/20/15, 5:08 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >As long as FlexJS apps don't use external libraries, it should be safe to > >do more drastic optimization like automatically renaming variables and > >things. This must be disabled for code transpiled with asjsc because > >external JS libraries can be referenced in the transpiled code, and those > >names must remain unchanged. It's possible to pass in externs files to the > >closure compiler, but that presents a high barrier to entry. > > I think I see code where, when you compile externs files into SWCs, you > can also pack the JS for the externs in the SWC in an folder called > “externs” and the transpiler will use that JS file as an externs file > during the compilation, which should prevent renaming. > > I believe that isn’t necessary for JS.swc because its externs are defaults > in GCC. Maybe it will matter for GCL.swc once I turn on optimizations > again. But we may need to verify that these code paths work as expected. > The SWC should be able to package the externs files you need to prevent > renaming when using third-party libraries. > > > > >I could not find a way to turn off the advanced optimizations for asjsc > >apps without also turning it off in FlexJS apps. As I recall, it gets > >configured in the middle of a big method, so it wasn't easy for me to > >override something. Some refactoring could make that more easily > >configurable across different JS output types. > > My current thought on this is to add a new compiler option that works sort > of like -define where you can specify as many as you want and just about > anything after. For lack of a better name, I am going to call it > -js-compiler-option. Better name suggestion are welcome. > > So you can add compiler arguments like > -js-compiler-option=“—compilation_level SIMPLE”. One problem with this > plan is that we don’t actually use the GCC command line. We use the Java > APIs which uses a data structure. We will have to write code that maps > strings like “—compilation_level SIMPLE” to actual code that sets data > structure properties. If GCC adds new options, we’ll have to keep > changing the mapper to stay up-to-date. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > >
