Moving Language into its own SWC would be great from a perspective of someone who is not using the framework.
I think it makes sense to consider an option where the Language class is replaceable. It might not be needed often, but it may be valuable for some advanced use cases. - Josh On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 5/2/16, 9:55 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Hey guys, > > > >It's always seemed a little strange to me that Language.as isn't included > >with flex-falcon, but inside the Core project in flex-asjs with a bunch of > >framework stuff. Could we consider moving it? > > Good topic. I've thought about that too, and I'm not strongly opposed, > but right now flex-falcon has no "active" ActionScript in it. IOW, no .AS > file in the flex-falcon repo currently runs in anybody's app. > > IMO, the idea was that FalconJX would output certain patterns based on > -js-output-type and various frameworks would implement APIs against those > patterns. It isn't clear that org.apache.flex.utils.Language must be the > one and only implementation in the world such that FalconJX should bundle > it. For example, I think the version in > flex-asjs/frameworks/projects/Core will grow to handle XML or maybe allow > XML to be plugged in, which not all customers may want. > > There are already places in the compilers where the -config.xml file can > dictate which class the compiler outputs in the patterns, although I don't > think Language is currently one of them. So one option is that we add to > the compiler an option to change the Language class package and there are > -config.xml files tuned for the "No-SWF" workflow some other lighter > weight Language class. > > Also, we could break Language out of Core and into its own Language.swc in > the flex-asjs repo if that helps. > > Thoughts? > -Alex > >
