AIUI, there is a cost in the minified JS to using constants.
However, there is a cost to screwing up the typing of a string literal as
well.
The best answer for now, IMO, is to not care whether folks use constants
or string literals. There are much bigger fish to fry. I don't want to
see sweeping changes of replacing all string literals with constants or
vice versa. If you've got that kind of time on your hands, learn the
compiler code and see if you can make the cross-compiler replace all
constants with string literals. IMO, that's the right answer.
-Alex
On 7/11/17, 5:37 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here’s what is output in the minimized code:
>
>function
>fqa(){}w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.GET','GET');w('org.apache.flex
>.net.HTTPConstants.POST','POST');w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.PUT'
>,'PUT');w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.FORM_URL_ENCODED',Fm);w('org.
>apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.DELETE','DELETE');w('org.apache.flex.net.HTT
>PConstants.OPEN','open');w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.COMPLETE',Bt
>);w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.COMMUNICATION_ERROR',At);w('org.apa
>che.flex.net.HTTPConstants.IO_ERROR','ioError');
>w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.SECURITY_ERROR','securityError');w('o
>rg.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants.STATUS',Fx);w('org.apache.flex.net.HTTPCo
>nstants.RESPONSE_STATUS','httpResponseStatus');fqa.prototype.h={names:[{na
>me:'HTTPConstants',i:IF,kind:g}]};w(IF,fqa);
>
>elsewhere:
>IF='org.apache.flex.net.HTTPConstants’,
>
>That’s 807 bytes. That’s quite a penalty for avoiding typing “POST”…
>
>No idea what wiki you are referring to.
>
>Harbs
>
>> On Jul 11, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> As it stands now, use of constants result in more JS code after
>>>compiled.
>>
>> Debug yes but not optimised / release.
>>
>>> It’s possible that this can be optimized, but currently the most
>>>efficient JS code is produced if using string literals rather than
>>>constants. (The Google compiler created variables for string literals
>>>used more than once.)
>>
>> That's not we found in a previous thread on this list, the google
>>compiler optimises the constants and there is no penalty in using them.
>>You mind provide examples that show the above is the actually case and
>>document it on the wiki?
>>
>> My vote would be not the duplicate the strings everywhere and use
>>constants as there is no cost and increased safety.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>
