So, this is only an issue for static functions and vars? Constants should be
fine. Right?
On Oct 5, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/5/16, 10:43 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have not been following this discussion very well, so I’m not sure I
>> got the issue, but will this prevent optimization of minimized code which
>> accesses static properties?
>
> I think I have discovered that static getters/setters were never getting
> renamed anyway. That's because if you have:
>
> public class Foo {
> public static function get bar():String
>
> It becomes:
>
> Object.defineProperty(Foo, { bar : function ... }
>
> And thus "bar" is a key in an Object and GCC doesn't try to rename those.
>
> Josh tried using @expose, which also prevented renaming as well, but we
> want to avoid using deprecated jsdoc tags.
>
> So, I think the final minified code in js-release is the same whether we
> are using @expose or this proposed change, but if you work with the
> js-debug code you will see:
>
> Foo["bar"]
>
> instead of
>
> Foo.bar
>
> FWIW, with just plain @export, the problem is that when setting up the
> renamed list for a class, GCC seems to only look at the code that looks
> like:
>
> /**
> * @type {string}
> */
> Foo.someOtherStaticProperty;
>
> and doesn't understand the Object.defineProperty call, so it doesn't think
> there is a "bar" property on Foo at all. So then, it optimizes
>
> Foo.bar
>
> to just a global like:
>
> xx
>
> HTH,
> -Alex
>
