Well I guess the thing is that you are building a SWC.
Till now we were expecting to build SWCs to be usable in SWF and JS. Therefore
we don’t have the concept of “pure JS swcs”.
If this is a thing, eventually it would be good to define different naming:
- swc (pure flash)
- js (pure js)
- jswc (both js and flash)
This could make things easier with the externs/typedefs as these would be “js”
type with scope “provided” …
What do the others think? Would require quite a major refactoring of the poms
and a slight adjustement of the maven plugin. But I think it would make things
clearer.
Chris
Am 22.02.17, 08:51 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>:
On 2/21/17, 11:40 AM, "Josh Tynjala" <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>COMPILE::JS and COMPILE:SWC are just regular compile-time constants. As
>far
>as I know, they receive no special treatment from the compiler. It's just
>a
>convention used by the FlexJS framework projects to make the components
>exclude certain code on some platforms. If you're targeting one platform,
>there shouldn't be any need to exclude anything, so this project shouldn't
>need COMPILE::JS at all.
>
>Why do you feel that COMPILE::JS is needed?
I think because Maven automatically plugs in playerglobal or airglobal for
the SWF build of a SWC. I think Maven has some skip options that can go
in the POM?
-Alex
