+1.
I also think that we have bigger fish to fry first.
My point was not to force one way or the other. Rather that the way it
currently stands there’s a valid reason to use string literals. I was not
suggesting changing anything.
Thanks,
Harbs
> On Jul 11, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That sounds like the proper way to handle this! We should be able to
> reference constants in our ActionScript so that we can get compile-time
> errors from typos, while the compiler makes sure that generated JavaScript
> can be properly minified.
>
> - Josh
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
