asjsc does not generate an index.html file, so you must be looking at the
output of mxmlc.
Today, asjsc outputs a JS file that lists the dependencies, as I described.
They're the exact same addDependency() calls that you'd see in mxmlc's
index.html.
- Josh
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:06 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2016 9:36 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > asjsc still generates all of the addDependency() calls required for a
> debug
> > build. No hand crafting needed. It generates them in a JS file named
> > ProjectName-dependencies.js. Not coincidentally, that is the only JS file
> > that you need to reference in a script tag in your HTML when running the
> > debug build.
>
> I suppose it does not work that way today? I see all individual calls
> loading each dependency in index.html.
>
> >
> > - Josh
> > On Jan 5, 2016 1:15 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > >>> > >>
> > > > >>> > >>
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
