I guess I better jump on that before it all melts away. I probably have some in some crackly downloads from a decade ago, unless I used them to feed a fire.
Great work, Josh! a On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:07 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> wrote: > I've added all of the new export-* and prevent-rename-* options, including > descriptions. I also added several more options that I saw were missing. > > Eventually, someone needs to fill in this page with *all* of the missing > options. Especially the core options that already existed during the Flex > days. Adobe has pulled down most of its Flex documentation now, and I'm not > sure that the Apache version of Flex ever had them fully documented either. > Soon, there may be no documentation for these options anywhere on the web, > even for someone persistent and knowledgeable enough to look for legacy > content. > > Most of the missing options may be found in this compiler class > (descriptions of each option are usually in jsdoc comments): > > https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/blob/develop/compiler-common/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/compiler/config/Configuration.java > > There are likely some more JS-specific options that are not documented yet > in these compiler classes too: > > https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/blob/develop/compiler-jx/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/compiler/clients/JSConfiguration.java > > https://github.com/apache/royale-compiler/blob/develop/compiler-jx/src/main/java/org/apache/royale/compiler/internal/driver/js/goog/JSGoogConfiguration.java > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 1:08 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > wrote: > > > I'll try to fill in the details soon. > > > > -- > > Josh Tynjala > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I have added a section that includes the four compiler options that > Carlos > >> mentioned. If there are more that, when used, reduce output size, they > >> should go there. I have not populated the descriptions, as a smart > person > >> should do that. > >> > >> a > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:23 PM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Yes, that page is a good location. Should we start a subsection for > >> these > >> > options which have the benefit of reducing output size? > >> > > >> > a > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 1:48 PM Carlos Rovira < > carlosrov...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Josh, > >> >> > >> >> thanks for working on this. I finally could get here after weeks of > >> hard > >> >> work in other things with almost not time. > >> >> I tried in Tour de Jewel with: > >> >> > >> >> -export-public-symbols=false > >> >> -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false > >> >> -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false > >> >> -prevent-rename-public-static-methods=false > >> >> -prevent-rename-public-instance-methods=false > >> >> > >> >> (for what I read that's the set it can be used without breaking app) > >> >> > >> >> and a downsize from 1045kb to 910kb so amazing! :) > >> >> > >> >> I'll try to add to TodoMVC as well and see what happens ;) > >> >> > >> >> @Andrew I think you and Josh can add this doc to the Royale Docs > >> compiler > >> >> options page here [1] > >> >> > >> >> [1] https://apache.github.io/royale-docs/compiler/compiler-options > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> El mar, 10 nov 2020 a las 23:36, Josh Tynjala (< > >> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > >> >> >) > >> >> escribió: > >> >> > >> >> > Hi Andrew, > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes, I can help with that! > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Josh Tynjala > >> >> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:22 PM Andrew Wetmore <cottag...@gmail.com > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Josh, this is very interesting. I would like to include an > >> actionable > >> >> > > amount of this information in our user documentation. If I > create a > >> >> page > >> >> > in > >> >> > > the help docs for it, can you help me populate instructions based > >> on > >> >> your > >> >> > > researchs? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thanks! > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Andrew > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 6:16 PM Josh Tynjala < > >> >> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hi all, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Some of you have probably been wondering about my changes to > the > >> >> > compiler > >> >> > > > over the last year or more. I apologize again for occasionally > >> >> breaking > >> >> > > > things for short periods. It's been quite a challenge getting > >> this > >> >> > stuff > >> >> > > > working, but I'm excited to finally be able to report some real > >> >> > > > improvements that pretty much anyone should be able to take > >> >> advantage > >> >> > of > >> >> > > > when building a Royale app. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > First some background. A while back, Harbs asked me to look > into > >> >> ways > >> >> > of > >> >> > > > reducing the file size of release builds. As you may know, we > use > >> >> > > Google's > >> >> > > > Closure compiler to optimize our generated JavaScript. Closure > >> can > >> >> be > >> >> > > very > >> >> > > > aggressive in its optimizations, by renaming symbols (things > like > >> >> > > variable > >> >> > > > and function names) and removing "dead code" that is detected > as > >> >> never > >> >> > > > being called. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Closure's optimizations are good, but they also require > >> developers > >> >> to > >> >> > be > >> >> > > > very careful about how they write their JavaScript code. When > you > >> >> > enable > >> >> > > > Closure's full optimizations, you are not allowed to use > certain > >> >> > > JavaScript > >> >> > > > features because Closure cannot analyze them properly. For > >> instance, > >> >> > > > consider the following code: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > var propName= "myProp"; > >> >> > > > var value = obj[propName]; > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > When you dynamically access a property with a string, Closure > >> cannot > >> >> > > > reliably know that the property exists and will be accessed at > >> >> runtime. > >> >> > > It > >> >> > > > may decide to rename or remove that property, which would break > >> >> things > >> >> > at > >> >> > > > runtime. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ActionScript supports many of the same restricted dynamic > >> features > >> >> too, > >> >> > > so > >> >> > > > if you want to support the entire AS3 language, we can't let > >> >> Closure do > >> >> > > its > >> >> > > > full optimization. Luckily, Closure also provides a bit of a > >> >> backdoor: > >> >> > it > >> >> > > > allows you to "export" symbols, which means that they won't be > >> >> renamed > >> >> > > and > >> >> > > > they won't be removed as dead code. Traditionally, we have made > >> >> heavy > >> >> > use > >> >> > > > of this exporting feature in Royale. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Harbs wanted to know if we absolutely needed to export > everything > >> >> that > >> >> > we > >> >> > > > currently export, and if we could potentially allow developers > to > >> >> turn > >> >> > > off > >> >> > > > exporting entirely, as long as they follow the stricter rules > >> >> required > >> >> > by > >> >> > > > Closure. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I won't go into all of the details, but over the last several > >> >> months, > >> >> > > I've > >> >> > > > been changing the compiler to give developers more control over > >> >> release > >> >> > > > builds. In particular, control over which symbols get exported, > >> but > >> >> > also > >> >> > > > the ability to block Closure from renaming symbols that haven't > >> been > >> >> > > > exported. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Now, for some of the results. I'm going to share the output > file > >> >> size > >> >> > of > >> >> > > > the release build for several Royale projects with various > >> different > >> >> > > > compiler options. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > For the example projects included with Royale, I built > >> royale-asjs > >> >> > commit > >> >> > > > 94f12ed0e564b0b443834400dc2fc06d61b90a8a from October 26, 2020. > >> If > >> >> you > >> >> > > want > >> >> > > > to try building these examples yourself, the file sizes of > >> release > >> >> > builds > >> >> > > > may be slightly different, if you use a different commit. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser is a project developed by Harbs and his team. I > >> used > >> >> > > commit > >> >> > > > d25a3def972b15ec029ae838f1a8a677d2d158bd from October 20 for > the > >> >> > results > >> >> > > > below. Repo: https://github.com/unhurdle/spectrum-royale/ > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > To establish a baseline, I built all of these projects with the > >> >> older > >> >> > > > Royale 0.9.7 compiler first. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > Baseline: royale-compiler 0.9.7 > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 68 KB > >> >> > > > ASDoc: 231 KB > >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 1074 KB > >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 900 KB > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Again, I am building the same AS3/MXML code every time, but > these > >> >> first > >> >> > > > numbers are from building with the older compiler. All apps > build > >> >> and > >> >> > run > >> >> > > > successfully. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ----- > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > The rest of the results are built with royale-compiler commit > >> >> > > > df8bd9f686f1bbf89539e545377b2797c646172c from November 3. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > All results below include the difference in KB and %. These > >> values > >> >> are > >> >> > > > always in comparison to the baseline numbers above. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > Result 1: 0.9.8 default options > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 84 KB (+10 KB / +24%) > >> >> > > > ASDoc: 254 KB (+23 KB / +10%) > >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 1105 KB (+31 KB / +3%) > >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 936 KB (+36 KB / +4%) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > These examples are slightly larger when built with the newer > >> >> compiler. > >> >> > > > That's expected. It's not ideal, but in the process of testing > a > >> >> > > multitude > >> >> > > > of things to be sure that nothing had broken after my compiler > >> >> > changes, I > >> >> > > > discovered some cases where exporting a symbol didn't actually > >> work > >> >> > > > correctly in 0.9.7! To properly fix the bug and export these > >> >> symbols, > >> >> > > there > >> >> > > > was no choice but to make the file size a bit larger. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > Result 2: Disable export > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 74 KB (+6 KB / +9%) > >> >> > > > ASDoc: 227 KB (-4 KB / -2%) > >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 942 KB (-132 KB / -12%) > >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 882 KB (-18 KB / -2%) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > In this round, I added the *-export-public-symbols=false* > >> compiler > >> >> > > option. > >> >> > > > You may recall that I said earlier that I also modified the > >> >> compiler to > >> >> > > > allow a symbol not to be exported, but still prevent it from > >> being > >> >> > > renamed. > >> >> > > > With that in mind, -export-public-symbols=false basically tells > >> the > >> >> > > > compiler that it still can't rename things, but it is allowed > to > >> >> remove > >> >> > > > what it perceives as dead code. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > HelloWorld is still slightly larger than 0.9.7, but the three > >> other > >> >> > > > examples are now slightly smaller than 0.9.7. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Most developers should be able to safely add > >> >> > -export-public-symbols=false > >> >> > > > to their compiler options when building a Royale app. The only > >> time > >> >> > that > >> >> > > > you might still want this exporting is if you have external > >> >> JavaScript > >> >> > in > >> >> > > > your page that isn't part of your Royale app, but it needs to > >> call > >> >> > > > functions/classes in your Royale app. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > Result 3: Allow non-public things to be renamed > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 72 KB (+4 KB / +6%) > >> >> > > > ASDoc: 221 KB (-10 KB / -4%) > >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 918 KB (-156 KB / -15%) > >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 861 KB (-39 KB / -4%) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > In this round, I used the following compiler options: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -export-public-symbols=false > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > *-prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false-prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false* > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > The two new options allow Closure compiler to rename protected > >> and > >> >> > > internal > >> >> > > > symbols. Once again, HelloWorld is still slightly larger than > >> 0.9.7, > >> >> > but > >> >> > > > the other three examples have gotten smaller again. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > While -prevent-rename-public-symbols=false exists too, we > cannot > >> use > >> >> > it. > >> >> > > > The examples would not work correctly at runtime. This option > >> would > >> >> > > > probably work in a pure AS3 app, but our implementation of MXML > >> in > >> >> > Royale > >> >> > > > uses dynamic language features that Closure restricts. Unless > >> that > >> >> is > >> >> > > > fixed, we need to avoid renaming certain public symbols. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Again, most developers should be able to add > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false > >> >> > > > and -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false to their Royale > app's > >> >> > compiler > >> >> > > > options. You might need to prevent renaming of > protected/internal > >> >> > symbols > >> >> > > > if you access them dynamically. However, in my experience, > people > >> >> are > >> >> > > much > >> >> > > > more likely to access public symbols dynamically. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ----- > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > Result 4: Allow public methods to be renamed > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > HelloWorld: 64 KB (-4 KB / -6%) > >> >> > > > ASDoc: 206 KB (-25 KB / -11%) > >> >> > > > TourDeJewel: 881 KB (-193 KB / -18%) > >> >> > > > SpectrumBrowser: 828 KB (-72 KB / -8%) > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > In this round, I used the following compiler options: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -export-public-symbols=false > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > *-prevent-rename-public-static-methods=false-prevent-rename-public-instance-methods=false > >> >> > > > * > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > The two new options allow Closure to rename methods that are > >> public. > >> >> > Now, > >> >> > > > all four examples are smaller than 0.9.7, and the file size > >> >> difference > >> >> > is > >> >> > > > getting even more dramatic. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Once again, -prevent-rename-public-static-methods=false and > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-instance-methods=false should be safe > for > >> >> most > >> >> > > > developers to enable when compiling their Royale app. In my > >> >> experience, > >> >> > > > calling methods dynamically is rare. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > More new compiler options > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > There are some additional new compiler options available, but > >> using > >> >> > them > >> >> > > is > >> >> > > > likely to break most Royale apps. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-static-variables=false > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-instance-variables=false > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-static-accessors=false > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-public-instance-accessors=false > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > These options control whether Closure allows variables or > >> accessors > >> >> > > > (getters and setters) to be renamed. There are also > >> similarly-named > >> >> > > options > >> >> > > > for protected and internal symbols, if you want more control > over > >> >> those > >> >> > > > too, instead of using -prevent-rename-protected-symbols=false > and > >> >> > > > -prevent-rename-internal-symbols=false. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Unfortunately, renaming public variables/accessors is usually > not > >> >> > > possible > >> >> > > > without breaking the app at runtime. In some apps, you might be > >> >> able to > >> >> > > > allow public static members to be renamed. However, in my > >> >> experience, > >> >> > > > binding to static constants is pretty common, and renaming > breaks > >> >> those > >> >> > > > bindings. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > Next Steps > >> >> > > > ========== > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Ideally, I'd like to make it possible for developers to be able > >> to > >> >> tell > >> >> > > > Closure that it's allowed to rename all symbols, including > public > >> >> > ones. I > >> >> > > > believe that we could see even more file size savings in > release > >> >> builds > >> >> > > if > >> >> > > > Closure works with full optimizations for all symbols. > Obviously, > >> >> > > > ActionScript developers would be required to strictly follow > >> >> Closure's > >> >> > > > rules, if they opt into renaming of public symbols, but that's > a > >> >> choice > >> >> > > > that they should be allowed to make. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > As I mentioned above, our implementation of MXML and binding > uses > >> >> > dynamic > >> >> > > > access, which is not compatible with Closure's full > >> optimizations. > >> >> To > >> >> > > > support those optimizations, I will need to explore changes to > >> how > >> >> we > >> >> > > > generate JS for MXML, and how it gets parsed at runtime. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > We previously discussed this subject a bit in this older thread > >> from > >> >> > > > January 2020: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r843e55252e37967b71b1430a2a904719791d698f3e5e2a79de74e493%40%3Cdev.royale.apache.org%3E > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > At the time, I tried out some ideas that we came up with while > >> >> > > > brainstorming, but all had various downsides that didn't make > >> for an > >> >> > > > obvious winner. In the end, I decided to set further > >> investigation > >> >> > aside > >> >> > > > and first focus on exporting/renaming stuff. Now, I'm ready to > >> take > >> >> a > >> >> > > > second look with a fresh perspective, and maybe we'll have some > >> new > >> >> > ideas > >> >> > > > to try. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > ----- > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > That was really long, so thank you for reading, if you made it > to > >> >> the > >> >> > > end! > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > TL;DR: By enabling certain, new compiler options, most Royale > >> >> > developers > >> >> > > > can make their app release builds smaller. Additionally, I plan > >> to > >> >> keep > >> >> > > > investigating, and I expect to find more ways to reduce file > >> size in > >> >> > the > >> >> > > > future. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -- > >> >> > > > Josh Tynjala > >> >> > > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > -- > >> >> > > Andrew Wetmore > >> >> > > > >> >> > > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Carlos Rovira > >> >> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >> >> *Apache Software Foundation* > >> >> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Andrew Wetmore > >> > > >> > http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> Andrew Wetmore > >> > >> http://cottage14.blogspot.com/ > >> > > > -- Andrew Wetmore http://cottage14.blogspot.com/
