I did a quick test the other day where I tried creating a flexjs-config.xml, which used js.swc instead of playerglobal.swc and the SWCs in frameworks/js/FlexJS/libs instead of frameworks/libs. When I used this new config, it didn't show any Flash APIs in the completion list in VSCode, which was better. I don't recall if I had time to test if the project would build correctly or not, though. A workflow like this could help for people only interested in JS output. It would expose APIs that aren't available in SWFs, though, so it's not removing the problem, but simply reversing it.
- Josh On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 12/6/16, 8:06 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >It's a really big issue that all the Flash display list APIs show up in > >the > >completion list for FlexJS components. People are going to get extremely > >(EXTREMELY!) frustrated that they can't tell at a glance which subset of > >properties is available in JS or not. > > Agreed that the code completion list is important, but not agreed that > Flash Builder's code completion list is important. > > FWIW, this compiler change further cements the gap between application > developers and framework developers. The goal of the framework developers > is to provide the application developers with a platform-agnostic API. > The person writing the framework code, however, probably should be offered > Sprite.graphics since he/she is allowed to write to it. Then we want to > hide that from the application developer. > > It would be great if we can solve that for Flash Builder, but IMO, if > Flash Builder is make-or-break for Apache FlexJS, we are in big trouble > since it is a legacy product. My priority is in the new IDEs that have > active development such as Moonshine, VS Code, FDT, and maybe others. > > We might be able to solve this for Flash Builder simply by changing what > SWCs go into the application project. I haven't had time to down this > road yet, and volunteers are welcome to help out, but the question is, > what if we replace playerglobal.swc with FlexJSPlayerGlobal.swc that we > write with just the supported APIs? Will FB and other IDEs freak out? > > Fundamentally, though, this compiler change proved that I can put code in > a SWC to present a different API than what Flash expects and then muck > with the ABC code when linking the SWF to create the code that Flash > expects. That's pretty powerful. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > > > >- Josh > > > >On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:12 AM, yishayw <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Suppose I have a component A that extends UIBase which extends Sprite. > >> Suppose I have this code: > >> > >> var a:A = new A(); > >> > >> Suppose I type a.gr ctrl-space. > >> > >> Will Flash Builder suggest to complete it to a.graphics even though it > >>will > >> result in a compile-time error? > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: http://apache-flex- > >> development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/FALCONJX-FLEXJS-SWF- > >> Subclass-and-other-Overrides-tp57008p57030.html > >> Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at > >>Nabble.com. > >> > >
