Even without FC (which I would forget about), don't you find it easier to skin in MXML because of its support for states? I am not concerned about making Falcon able to compile MXML skins. They are less complicated than MXML apps.
- Gordon Sent from my iPad On Aug 14, 2012, at 10:40 PM, "Omar Gonzalez" <omarg.develo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012, Alex Harui wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 8/14/12 9:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com<javascript:;>> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> I think Justin's looking for a stop gap solution for compiling MXML with >>>> Falcon. >>> 100% correct. >>> >> Interesting idea. However, I think AS compilation from scratch (as opposed >> to incremental compilation used in the IDE) is only 2 or 3 times faster >> than >> MXML, and the time spent writing out the AS and reading it in again won't >> save you anything (which, IIRC, is sort of one reason they made the >> decision >> to compile MXML straight to ABC) >> >> Also, the current generated code from MXMLC can't just be compiled and >> turned into a SWF. Some massaging has to take place, also slowing you >> down. >> >> Now, could you use Falcon now to build the Flex SDK? Almost. IIRC, there >> was one MXML file in the mx.swc and more in the Spark Skins. Replacing >> MXML >> skins with AS skins would make them faster, but then they would be less >> useful in tools like FC. >> >> -- >> Alex Harui >> Flex SDK Team >> Adobe Systems, Inc. >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >> >> > Being one of the strongest proponents of FC (I am in the promo video on the > product page :P ) Should we even consider that tool for anything? It's EOL, > why would we not do something like make AS skins instead of MXML to > preserve FC support? > > -omar
