Here: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/Node-js-support-td50414.html
Or here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/flex-dev/201512.mbox/browser The Flex website has links to the archives here: http://flex.apache.org/community-mailinglists.html On Dec 3, 2015, at 11:02 AM, jude <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry to interject but how do I get a link to this thread? I've seen them > in footers before but not this one. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Got it. So if I were trying to hide a require() call, @flexjsignorecoercion >> could be used in my code without requiring users to do anything. I think I >> may be able to work with that. I'll play around with it, when I have a >> moment. >> >> - Josh >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> Currently it works at the method's ASDoc, not at the class level. >>> >>> Here's an excerpt: >>> >>> >>> /** >>> * @flexjsignorecoercion org.apache.flex.core.WrappedHTMLElement >>> * @flexjsignorecoercion HTMLBodyElement >>> */ >>> COMPILE::JS >>> override public function start():void >>> { >>> var body:HTMLBodyElement; >>> >>> // For createjs, the application is the same as the canvas >>> // and it provides convenient access to the stage. >>> >>> element = document.createElement('canvas') as >>> WrappedHTMLElement; >>> element.id = 'flexjsCanvas'; >>> element.width = 700; >>> element.height = 500; >>> >>> body = document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0] as >>> HTMLBodyElement; >>> body.appendChild(this.element); >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/2/15, 3:07 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Interesting... I didn't know about that. How would @flexjsignorecoercion >>>> be >>>> used? In the asdocs for a class, like this? >>>> >>>> /** >>>> * @flexjsignorecoercion >>>> */ >>>> public class MyClass {} >>>> >>>> If I'm understanding your correctly, when using this tag, the JS output >>>> would not pass the value to Language.as()? >>>> >>>> //as >>>> var test = something as MyClass; >>>> >>>> //js >>>> var test = something; //instead of Language.as(something) >>>> >>>> If that's how it works, I think it might be good enough for my needs. >>>> >>>> - Josh >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/2/15, 2:37 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Oh, I see. I didn't realize that you were thinking that users would >>>>> import >>>>>> something and also manually call require(). In that case, yes, you >>>>> could >>>>>> still potentially have proper type checking. >>>>>> >>>>>> I like the idea of using some kind of wrapper class to hide the >>>>> require() >>>>>> call. It's kind of messy to both import and call require(), so I >> really >>>>>> would prefer to hide one or the other, if possible. >>>>> >>>>> It's up to you or whoever writes this code. A wrapper adds a layer of >>>>> function calls but does let you hide some ugliness. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There's one thing that seems like an issue to me, though. Using an as >>>>> cast >>>>>> with require() will probably result in a null result because what is >>>>>> returned by require("fs") doesn't actually extend an FS class (or >>>>>> implement >>>>>> an FS interface). >>>>>> >>>>>> var fs:FS = require("fs") as FS; >>>>> >>>>> We have this problem already. There is a special ASDoc tag called >>>>> @flexjsignorecoercion that suppresses "as" code in the cross-compiled >>>>> output. I've considered trying to get the compiler to automatically >>>>> suppress the "as" code for any "as" usage that references a class in >> an >>>>> external-library-path SWC. That seems like it could fail you in some >>>>> distributed development cases where you have other code that does >>>>> support >>>>> AS in an external-library-path SWC. We could add file-level >> suppression >>>>> as well, or have a config option that lists certain coercions to >> always >>>>> suppress. Definitely open to ideas on this, but the fact is, the >>>>> compiler >>>>> will not let you have type-checking without using "as" so you sort of >>>>> have >>>>> to have a scheme to deal with it. >>>>> >>>>> -Alex >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>
