If the only reason to not use the flash namespace is because it has a
pejorative term to some ignorant media types and competing web developers
than that's not a good case.
If someone doesn't want to use FlexJS because they see the term "flash"
somewhere then they can go find another tool.
But if you change it, you're creating problems later when someone wants to
use to use things like getDefinitionByName("flash.*.*");
Maybe it looks solvable from your end. I'll leave that up to you. But if
you leave it as is then, you also have the possibility of taking existing
flash code examples found online, use the same code and get the same
results without changing the names.
What about if we have both? We have a flash.*.* and the compiler clones the
same classes but under flex.*.*. You could use either and it'd be backward
compatible.
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point is that if someone is using a swf-first workflow, they can’t just
> use flex.* packages.
>
> If we do some magic depending on whether it’s JS or AS, that might work.
>
> On Apr 18, 2016, at 9:17 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 4/18/16, 11:01 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Apr 18, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/18/16, 6:24 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. Assuming we accept it, what should the package naming be? I think
> >>>> there’s a strong case for leaving it as-is.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, I would rename "flash" to "flex". I'd like our FlexJS code to not
> >>> mention Flash at all, regardless of whether there is some
> >>> legal/copyright
> >>> issue. It just helps make it clear that this stuff doesn't really use
> >>> Flash, it helps us get out of the expectation that this code will
> >>> somehow
> >>> perfectly replicate what Flash does, and it helps users migrating to
> see
> >>> what flash dependencies they have in their code.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, it isn't that hard to replace flash.*.* with flex.*.*, and I've
> >>> been
> >>> pondering a compile flag that automatically looks for a flex.*.* when
> it
> >>> sees flash.*.*.
> >>
> >> Lizhi siad there’s a problem with changing the package so it can run
> >> Starling.
> >>
> >> I’m not 100% sure what this means, but my understanding is that changing
> >> the package names would require a lot of code changes to redirect to the
> >> Flash packages in playerglobal.swc.
> >> So, for example:
> >> public class TextField extends InteractiveObject
> >> {
> >> }
> >
> > Maybe I have to go look at his code. My assumption is that he has a class
> > called flash.text.TextField that emulates the Flash TextField in WebGL.
> I
> > think we should rename that class to flex.text.TextField in our code
> base.
> >
> > Folks who are migrating code that references flash.text.TextField would
> > have a choice. One is to manually change the "import
> > flash.text.TextField" at the top of each file that uses it. That way
> they
> > see which flash classes they are depending on that may not be fully
> > implemented yet. Or we'll add a compiler flag so that every "import
> > flash.text.TextField" causes the compiler to think you've written
> > "flex.text.TextField" instead.
> >
> >> would have to become:
> >> COMPILE::AS3{
> >> public class TextField extends flash.text.TextField
> >> {
> >> }
> >> }
> >> COMPILE::JS{
> >> public class TextField extends InteractiveObject
> >> {
> >> …
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> I’m not sure if just making all the AS3 classes extend the Flash ones is
> >> enough.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand which classes you are talking about here.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. How should it be structured in the source? Should all the code go
> >>>> into
> >>>> a single “Flash” project? Should it be split into multiple projects
> >>>> (possibly one for each of the flash top-level packages)?
> >>>
> >>> I haven't looked at the code, but if it is essentially the
> >>> implementation
> >>> behind playerglobal.swc, so it would be one SWC project in
> >>> flex-asjs/frameworks/projects.
> >>
> >> Is there a performance/code size concern with putting everything in a
> >> single SWC? Am I correct in assuming only the necessary code will be
> >> compiled into JS/SWF?
> >
> > I expect that most apps are going to pull in a lot of this code anyway,
> > but yes, only classes needed are included in the output.
> >
> > -Alex
>
>
