On 1/4/16, 5:14 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> If you diff asjsc vs mxmlc you'll see the difference. >> > >This is the difference I see: > >asjsc: -js-output-type=jsc >-external-library-path="$SCRIPT_HOME/../libs/js.swc" >mxmlc: -js-output-type=FLEXJS >-sdk-js-lib="$FLEX_HOME/frameworks/js/FlexJS/src" > > >So, -js-output-type=FLEXJS instead of jsc should do the trick of creating >the index.html file? > Yes. > >> IMO, I wouldn't call a new script mxmlcnpm because others may want an >>auto >> generated hmtl as well. Give it a more generic name. >> > >Here are the current use cases: > >1. Convert AS3 (targeting HTML DOM) to JS -> use asjsc >2. Convert AS3 + MXML (targeting FlexJS) to JS + HTML > use mxmlc > >The use case we need to add is >Convert AS3 (targeting HTML DOM) to JS + HTML > >Something like asjshtmlc? In that case, shouldn't mxmlc be renamed to >mxmlcjshtmlc as well, for the sake of consistency? > >Or am I overthinking this? What would you suggest? Another option is to add a flag to asjsc script to dictate whether to generate the HTML or not. Yet another option is to set up different -config.xml files and have folks specify that somehow. Keep in mind that folks wanting to target Jquery or CreateJS need to use those SWCs as external libraries as well. It might be better to just document how to pass in the SWCs I don't have a great idea for this problem. -Alex
