Quoting Joan Llenas Masó <j...@garnetworks.com>:
Michael, (nothing to do with last discussion).
It's obvious that you have knowledge about the compiler so let me ask you
some things...
Aside from what's here (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Falcon+Overview ) what
would you recommend to someone who is curious about the compiler
architecture? (thinking on the possibility of future contributions)
i.e.
Is the compiler built on top of another technology (aside from Java,
obviously) that I'd have to learn about?
No, the lexer/parser implementation is Antrl grammar (creates the AS3
and CSS parsers, CSS lexer), JFlex grammar(creates the AS3, MXML
tokenizer), JBurg grammar creates the ABC byte code, CSS emitter.
These implementations are pretty tested from the work previous to the
donation by Adobe. If we needed to fix bugs in either of the above,
knowledge in ANTlr, JFlex and JBurg is needed.
Is Eclipse knowledge required (when you are not interested in the Eclipse
plugin)?
No, as in anything Java, I'm sure other IDEs handle editing fine and
ANT builds everything, calling parser, tokenizer and emitter
generators in the above mentioned.
Any known design patterns (compiler specific) that should be known prior to
start looking at the compiler code / documentation?
No, you need to learn the IDefinition API, that is where any IDE that
has a type hierarchy comes in. :) It's not even necessary to
understand the parser node framework to understand what is going on.
Is the compiler 100% Java based or we need some C / C++ knowledge?
100% Java.
One other thing to note here, with all this talk of rewriting the
framework and Haxe, etc. I have been weary of starting anything
because if the baby is thrown out with the bath water on a project
level. All my work and Gordon's just gets flushed down the drain.
I don't have this time to burn. SO I am patiently waiting to see where
the masses are migrating to. While working on my other projects in
Android mobile.
Also note, I was just about to do a lot on the wiki trying to give
deeper understanding to the IDefinition framework, but all this talk
last week has me worried about wasted time and effort again.
Mike
Thank you in advanced!
Cheers
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Michael Schmalle
<apa...@teotigraphix.com>wrote:
I don't quite understand what you are saying but, I have said 100 times I
do not like the Flash Player in many threads, read it on my blog etc.
What I said below means, I would bet on AS3 language for the time being
NOT the SWF format. The compilers are lexers/parsers first and parse AS3,
MXML and CSS into AST which from there we can do anything with, the ABC
bytecode emitter is at the end of the chain and has nothing to do with what
I want to fiddle with.
So please do not think I want anything to do with the current or future
Flash Player AVM, I don't.
Mike
Quoting Stefan Horochovec <stefan.horocho...@gmail.com>:
I think a little differently, the only answer we have now is that we move
from dependence on runtime from Adobe. This lack of information and
changing business plans involving the VM is terrible for the future of
Apache Flex.
Or are we an independent solution for RIA development, or we will live
forever in this situation.
For me it is completely impractical to bet on a framework based on a VM
that who develops the framework, completely unaware of his future runtime.
Regards
Stefan Horochovec
2012/11/17 Hordur Thordarson <hor...@lausn.is>
> The last two days proves that know one has any real answers to anything
right now. The only way to get answers is the scientific method of limit
your variables and test the crap out the ideas.
Well said, I totally agree with this :-)
On 17.11.2012, at 19:00, Michael Schmalle wrote:
> Before I commit to anything that is in Haxe land or total rewriting
etc,
I am going to experiment with FalconAS, FalconJS and the MXML compiler
for
fun.
>
> To me as you just said, experimenting at the moment with something we
have is going to be an experiment for me. Unless some chariot flies from
the sky and lifts Apache Flex into the heavens, I think there is just
going
to be a lot of experimenting with all angles until some one starts
actually
making progress on something.
>
> The last two days proves that know one has any real answers to anything
right now. The only way to get answers is the scientific method of limit
your variables and test the crap out the ideas.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>:
>
>> I understand and I agree. I was just reacting to an email by Gordon
>> explaining that MXML 'coverage' in Falcon is at 80%, but that the last
20%
>> will take many man-months to finish, something Gordon on his own is
>> obviously not capable of contributing. And then there's FalconJS,
which
>> from the few things I was able to find with a little help from Google,
is
>> awesome, but only a research project. That means that it has the
promise to
>> be great, but also that it will require a lot of work to get done.
>>
>> Now, I'm not (very) impatient, so if you can only get into details
after
>> the donation clears, I understand, but meanwhile the conversation seem
to
>> be about re-writing this and using that, anything but what we actually
have
>> available at the moment. I was looking at our resources and thinking
about
>> alternatives… and thought we should consider this as an option, or at
least
>> discuss using what we have and know to work.
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/17/12 4:47 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> > As a complete compiler noob, but can somebody answer this:
>>> >
>>> > Can we not build a 'mxmlcJS'? I understand that Falcon was
specifically
>>> > designed to have a 'variable backend' that allows for FalconJS to
be
>>> hooked
>>> > in. Is something like that feasible with the 'previous generation'
>>> > compiler(s)?
>>> >
>>> > The advantage would be that we have a fully fledged MXML/AS
compiler
that
>>> > works with the current framework, so no need to rewrite the
framework,
>>> nor
>>> > invest heavily in finishing the remaining 20% of the Falcon MXML
parsing
>>> > and finish FalconJS. We would 'only' have to rewrite the part of
the
>>> > compiler that currently outputs 'abc' and the browser side player
>>> > (HTML/CSS/JS) :-)
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> In theory, Falcon should also be faster. And, IMO, the code is
cleaner and
>>> has fewer SDK dependencies which will be to our advantage when trying
to
>>> get
>>> to other targets.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Alex Harui
>>> Flex SDK Team
>>> Adobe Systems, Inc.
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
>
> --
> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
> http://www.teotigraphix.com
> http://blog.teotigraphix.com
>
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com
--
Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC
http://www.teotigraphix.com
http://blog.teotigraphix.com
