I've just followed your lead here, you had done a lot of the initial work already, so I didn't have to figure out the 'how to do' part, just bits of the 'what to do'. So far I have added optional caching (TypeDefinition.useCache), but it is currently not on by default (I haven't actually gotten to testing it yet). And the variables and methods arrays etc will respect the same setting, but are always returned via Array.slice() from their getters so there shouldn't be any possibility to mess with the cached definitions (the individual reflection objects are ready-only, so its just the arrays that are a concern here I think).
I think the caching might be a good idea to speed things up for when we need this to support any serialization/deserialization such as for amf when Chris gets to it. I am pretty sure js will need all the help it can get for that. I think we could also consider sort of custom json objectEncoding as well in the future that might be an extra option here. I have worked with some json in the past with ___type:"qName here" fields as a sort of approach for this, but I don't know if there is anything semi-standard here. Anyhow, this is going to be a little like the Binding updates, there will be changes in the compiler (jx only this time) and in the framework.... I expect to finish it up over the weekend and should have something by Monday your time. What is your preference for me getting this into the repo? If all current (updated) tests pass and nothing else seems broken is it ok if I push to develop for jx and asjs? Or do you prefer I go to branches on both until it can be checked by you or others - it will be something where both repos will need to update at the same time I think. On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 9/8/16, 5:39 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"Alex if you have a different view of how this should work, please let me > >know." > > > >Sorry I have been to long in the compiler. I see what is needed in the > >framework code now. I will just use what is there. :) > > > > Sounds good. There is trade-off between how much reflection info we add > to the output vs how long it takes the reflection library to compute the > answer. I personally don't care how long it takes the reflection library > to compute the answer, it just has to be possible, but others might have > different opinions. > > Looking forward to what you come up with. > > -Alex > >
