On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Well, the compiler could be upgraded to process a template like Flash
> Builder currently does. I'm curious to know how many folks use Flash
> Builder and/or Ant tasks to process the html templates for SWFs vs
> plugging in some custom thing in their workflow.
>
I remember in Flex 2 days where it was very cool to quickly write some code
and hit the run button and see the browser pop-up with the app. That made
for a very good first impression. If we don't have a quick way to visually
see the JS code that got generated, there is not much of a first
impression, IMHO.
Also, it is not very obvious that we need to create a html file with a new
MainClass.start() on body load. And it seems like we are
using goog.addDependency calls to load the required Javascript files. Do
we really expect the users to handcraft this everytime? That could be tons
of JS files to be added by hand. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a
transpiler.
That said, it will become annoying very quickly when one realizes that the
index.html cannot be changed.
I think having a very simple html file as a default template is a happy
medium. It works for the instant gratification that new users would seek
and more advanced users can dig in a bit deeper and swap out the default
with a custom template.
Thanks,
Om
>
> But IMO, the main reason to have an option is so folks can save a step in
> getting the SDK and trying it out.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 1/4/16, 7:56 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I should add that I'm not opposed to adding some kind of optional flag to
> >asjsc that tells it to generate an HTML file similar to how mxmlc does it.
> >That HTML file just doesn't seem especially useful to me, as I consider
> >what it would be like to use asjsc in a real-world project. So I'm trying
> >to get a better understanding of your perspective.
> >
> >- Josh
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Is it actually necessary for the compiler to create some kind of
> >> boilerplate HTML for you? It may be a little useful for quick demos,
> >>I'll
> >> concede, but many real world projects will need highly customized HTML
> >> files. Many need things like analytics, CSS, and other static HTML
> >>content
> >> that isn't purely generated by JavaScript (for SEO and things).
> >>
> >> In fact, the compiler isn't really set up for customizing the HTML that
> >>it
> >> currently generates with mxmlc. You can see it is mostly hard-coded in
> >> JSGoogPublisher.java. It's actually very simple markup. Probably too
> >>simple
> >> to use in production for most people, especially if they want to use
> >>asjsc
> >> and integrate it into the rest of their web development workflow.
> >>
> >> - Josh
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 5:14 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> >><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?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > 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?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Om
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > -Alex
> >>> >
> >>> > On 1/4/16, 4:28 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >>> Muppirala"
> >>> > <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >I think I get it.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >I thought that the source code for js.swc was in
> >>> > >$FLEX_HOME/frameworks/js/FlexJS/src.
> >>> > >I guess that is not true?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >The original problem was that asjsc does not create the index.html
> >>> file.
> >>> > >I
> >>> > >was asked to use mxmlc for that. (Refer to the npm install flexjs
> >>> thread)
> >>> > >
> >>> > >When I used the script in {installed_flexjs}/js/bin/mxmlc, it blew
> >>>up
> >>> > >because it could not find the definitions for HTMLElement,
> >>>SVGElement
> >>> etc.
> >>> > >because they are in js.swc. I don't think it blew up because of the
> >>> > >missing /frameworks/js/FlexJS/src folder. Adding the external
> >>>library
> >>> > >path
> >>> > >to js.swc fixed this issue.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >The way I did this was to create a new mxmlcnpm script and add this
> >>> js.swc
> >>> > >library path in that. Is that okay?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >I guess another question is: what would be the best way to add
> >>>ability
> >>> to
> >>> > >create index.html capability to asjsc?
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Thanks,
> >>> > >Om
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On 1/4/16, 4:09 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash
> >>> > Muppirala"
> >>> > >> <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> >In the flexjs/js/bin/mxmlc script, I see that we are referencing
> >>> the '
> >>> > >> >*/frameworks/js/FlexJS/src*' folder.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> This folder is intended as the place for folks to put
> >>>monkey-patched
> >>> JS
> >>> > >> files so they can override the JS in the SWCs if they need to
> >>> > >>workaround a
> >>> > >> bug.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> What code blew up? Maybe we should create an empty folder there
> >>>or
> >>> make
> >>> > >> the compiler tolerant of it not being there.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Trying to use js.swc with MXMLC is not currently the common
> >>> > >>configuration
> >>> > >> for FlexJS. Most folks who are using MXML and AS to build a
> >>>FlexJS
> >>> app
> >>> > >> shouldn't need to write directly the the JS API especially if they
> >>> want
> >>> > >>to
> >>> > >> use a SWF version for testing and/or deployment.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> If you want to build out a different script for folks to use to
> >>>build
> >>> > >> native apps, feel free to do that.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> -Aleex
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
