Alex, I think you have known me long enough o see where I am headed with this. I agree with everything you have said and it's more of a conceptual issue with me right now. I have definitely proven to myself that once I figure out the actual problem I can usually solve it pretty quick.
I guess it's that I don't have the compiler setup right now to do a simple test so I am still in the dark. I did look at MXMLClassDirectiveProcessorand the light bulb went on, I remember looking at this class extensively years ago. So my main thought is what you have side, the compiler MXML, should require an interface which it seems it does, the framework should hook into it without worrying about anything. TO me a well design compiler would do this and if it doesn't it wasn't designed the way we need it. Mike On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 3/1/16, 2:30 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Hey Om, > > > >This is all purely hypothetical in my head right now so I may be missing > >something as well but the first goal is to use Feathers out right, that > >means hooking into Josh's classes. > > I think that's the key. You can continue to have forks of compilers that > don't require touching existing AS code, or touch and/or wrap the AS code > so we only need one compiler. I'm hoping to convince folks that the > latter takes less energy from the greater community. > > Of course, if someone can come up with a set of compiler options that > allows us to dictate enough aspects of the generated code to abstract > between differences in frameworks that would probably be ok, but IMO it is > more than just addChild/addElement. In Flex, children are not always > created at certain points in the lifecycle. There is a concept of > Navigators that have deferred instantiation: the children are not created > until you navigate to that Tab or Page. The current Falcon output says > "here are your child descriptors. You figure out what to do with it". > > Another consideration is that unlike the Flex SDK which has MXMLC in the > code base, Falcon is currently its own code base and potentially its own > release cycle, so trying to minimize interdependencies between the > frameworks and compilers seems like a good idea, and almost every bug can > be fixed by AS developers of the framework; they don't have to learn > enough about Java and how to build the compiler. > > -Alex > >
