Hmm. I thought GCC didn't rename those. Anyway, I added back the
@export. See if that works for you and then see if you think there is
enough obfuscation.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 8/9/17, 12:45 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The problem is as follows:
>
>Taking textInput as an example, the MXML gets compiled into the following:
> textInput: {
> /** @this {com.printui.view.components.PaletteSlider} */
> get: function() {
> return this.textInput_;
> },
> /** @this {com.printui.view.components.PaletteSlider} */
> set: function(value) {
> if (value != this.textInput_) {
> this.textInput_ = value;
>
>this.dispatchEvent(org.apache.flex.events.ValueChangeEvent.createUpdateEve
>nt(this, 'textInput', null, value));
> }
> }
> },
>
>which gets minified to this:
>
>yw:{get:r('Nja'),set:function(a){a!=this.Nja&&(this.Nja=a,this.dispatchEve
>nt(yR(this,iI,null,a)))}}
>
>goog has no way of knowing that the original textInput property name is
>used anywhere so all references to textInput are changed to yw.
>
>I think the solution to this is to add @export tags to the
>Object.defineProperty specification for any property that’s declared or
>used in the MXML.
>
>If localId is used, there might be another option which would be to
>rename the id to some value that’s one or two characters long. I’m pretty
>sure that goog will not rename really short property names like that. (We
>can’t do that for id because it might be used by CSS.)
>
>Harbs
>
>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here’s a problem I ran into:
>>
>> I have a component which has the following:
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.ap
>>ache.org%2FcN1T&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5b5c51c82fc94c95d9d408d4defa99bb%7Cfa7b
>>1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378615292281524&sdata=FPaamWRAc
>>t5HAYakAZnFzT8biHOT%2F%2F0%2BCFlY32%2BvZtg%3D&reserved=0
>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.a
>>pache.org%2FcN1T&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5b5c51c82fc94c95d9d408d4defa99bb%7Cfa7
>>b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636378615292281524&sdata=FPaamWRA
>>ct5HAYakAZnFzT8biHOT%2F%2F0%2BCFlY32%2BvZtg%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> In the script block I have references to disableBead, textInput, etc.
>>
>> The instance correctly has properties of disableBead, textInput, etc.,
>>but every reference to these properties is renamed.
>>
>> textInput.addEventListener
>> becomes:
>> this.yw.addEventListener
>>
>> disableBead.disabled
>> becomes
>> this.Jm.disabled
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> this.yw and this.Jm are both undefined
>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 9:10 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com
>>><mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ll give it a go and see.
>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID
>>>><mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think getters and setters get renamed because they are keys
>>>>in the
>>>> Object.defineProperties data structure. I'm wondering if that will be
>>>> enough obfuscation for you or not.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 8/8/17, 10:22 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com
>>>><mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a custom component “A” which implements a DisabledBead in
>>>>> ActionScript. It has a getter called “enabled”.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have another MXML file “B” which uses the component and specifies
>>>>> enabled=“false”.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’m assuming the “enabled” property in “A” will be renamed without an
>>>>> @export.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mxml in “B” will still be using a string for the property name
>>>>>which
>>>>> will be “enabled” that will be undefined.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID
>>>>>><mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just tried DataBindingExample. MyInitialView is essentially a
>>>>>>custom
>>>>>> component. What are you thinking won't work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/8/17, 2:30 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com
>>>>>><mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you try MXML with custom components? I’m not sure I understand
>>>>>>>how
>>>>>>> that would work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:01 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID
>>>>>>>><mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some things I found were that MXML isn't a problem because the id
>>>>>>>>maps
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> a getter/setter which maps to Object.DefineProperty which takes an
>>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>>> structure where the ids are keys so they don't get renamed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
