And what's even stranger, but I forgot to mention in my last post. The compiler produces the JS debug version correctly and it seems to be runnable, but as the compiler returns a set of problems, the build fails.
Chris ________________________________ Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Oktober 2016 15:55:00 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: [FlexJS] Confusion about compilaton Hi, I am currently digging though some things Carlos recent posts made me aware of. Especially his comment about the maven build double compiling stuff. I did stumble over something while setting up a first pure-js testsuite test. In this module I want to create the JS version of the HelloWorld project. I was confused, why it wanted me to provide the flash.display.DisplayObject ... so I added playerglobal and the project built just fine (the same way the application archetype is). The output worked in Flash and in JavaScript. But I thought "Hey ... it's pure JS so why do I need playerglobal?". If I omit the playerglobal, the JS Compiler complains about MXMLDataInterpreter missing the definition of flash.display.DisplayObject. Having a short look at the class definition this is clearly inside a "COMPILE::SWF" block. Which makes sense as this is the way the SWC was compiled. But how should I compile the core modules in order to use them in a pure JS compilation? Wouldn't I need all the classes in a version compiled with "COMPILE:JS" set to True? But why do all the examples work? The code should be invalid as it's the SWC code variant that seems to be used. Or is it that the Flash code contains the "SWC" version and the "js/out" contains the "JS" version? Then I still don't understand why my examples are running nicely the way they are currently. Chris
