And I think GOOG was another flavor intended to leverage more of GCL but is not currently supported.
So I think the only active ones are JSC, NODE, FLEXJS (which is the default). We might retire FLEXJS_DUAL depending on how we decide to combine the compilers. -Alex On 10/6/16, 8:13 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >JSC is meant to be purely an ActionScript to JavaScript transpiler without >any frameworks. By default, it doesn't export an HTML file, but it will >optionally support custom HTML templates in 0.8.0. It is exposed through >the js/bin/asjsc executable, where it loads the frameworks/js-config.xml >configuration. js-config.xml references js.swc to give ActionScript access >to browser APIs. > >NODE generates an index.js that bootstraps things for Node.js. It is >exposed through the js/bin/asnodec executable, which it loads the >frameworks/node-config.xml configuration. In addition to js.swc, >node-config.xml references node.swc to give ActionScript access to Node.js >APIs. > >As far as I know, AMD and VF2JS are no longer maintained. I assume AMD >tried to output AMD modules instead of goog modules. I remember Alex or >someone mentioning that VF2JS had something to do with the original Flex >framework, but I don't know the details. > >- Josh > >On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:10 AM, Christofer Dutz ><christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >wrote: > >> Hi Alex, >> >> >> yesterday I stumbled over this flexjs-dual output type while looking for >> the correct settings to buid a pure JS app. Would it be possible for you >> guys to give a short summary of what the different output types actually >> are? The enum doesn't contain any documentation on this and I guess this >> would be really helpful. >> >> >> So far I see these output types: >> >> AMD >> FLEXJS >> GOOG >> VF2JS >> FLEXJS_DUAL >> JSC >> NODE >> >> And I guess I only used no value and FLEXJS >> >> >> Chris >> >> ________________________________ >> Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 07:45:48 >> An: dev@flex.apache.org >> Betreff: [FALCONJX] Combining SWF and JS compilers (was Re: AW: >> [FalconJX][FlexJS] COMPJSC and Build order) >> >> Fred Thomas did some work in this area about a year ago. In the >> flex-oem-compiler module that FB (and maybe other IDEs) use to talk to >>the >> compiler, he added a FLEXJS_DUAL -js-output-type. Not sure how well it >> works. >> >> Thinking about this some more we'd have to have the same configuration >> options available to both compilers which might be a bit strange. Or >> maybe we can convince the compilers to not complain about unknown config >> parameters. >> >> We'd have to decide on how to reset the library-path for each compile. >> The JS compile might use different SWCs than the SWF compile. >> >> We'd have to select a few conditional compile options that would be >> different for each compiler. For example, COMPILE::SWF would be true >>for >> SWF compiling and false for JS compiling and vice versa, and maybe >>finding >> those params on the command-line would have no effect since they would >>be >> dictated by the compiler. >> >> Thoughts? >> -Alex >> >> On 10/2/16, 1:45 PM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >That would be ideal! >> > >> >- Josh >> > >> >On Oct 1, 2016 10:47 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> > >> >> One more thought on this: now that COMPJSC can more or less build >>its >> >>own >> >> output instead of relying on COMPC to package its pile of .js files, >>it >> >> might be worth experimenting with combining Falcon and FalconJX so >>COMPC >> >> can produce a SWC or a SWC with JS files based on some configuration >> >> parameter. Then there would only be one compiler that produces SWFs >>or >> >>JS >> >> based on some -output-type flag. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> On 10/1/16, 10:18 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Hi Chris, >> >> > >> >> >When I read this, I realized I already pushed the changes when I >>pushed >> >> >some other changes yesterday. If the Maven build didn't blow up, >>it is >> >> >probably because it is using its own compile-xx-config.xml files so >>is >> >> >still generating a pile of .js files and packaging them up on the >>SWF >> >> >COMPC run. >> >> > >> >> >-Alex >> >> > >> >> >On 10/1/16, 6:10 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >> >>wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>Hi Alex, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>so I guess ideally this change should be done on a feature branch, >>so >> >>I >> >> >>can sort out the Maven issues and we'll merge that back as soon as >> >>all is >> >> >>working. I would like to ask you to create a >> >>"feature-autobuild/"-branch >> >> >>for that. Just give me a short note what branch the stuff is in and >> >>I'll >> >> >>try to sort out the Maven issues. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Chris >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>
