"The SWF file is then used to write out the js using a JBurg bottom up reducer/emitter." ;-)
That means so little to me, while it probably explains everything to someone with the proper background. I'll try to get some more background, so I may be of some use when the time comes to start hacking the JS output. EdB On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > Well you may have missed it since this thread is going forever but I did > write something [0] > > There was one concept I screwed up and that is in the end the loop and write > doesn't happen on the monolithic SWF, I think it's for external files that > were not linked into the main SWF. > > Basically, the compiler loads like MXMLC, using configuration files and args > passed to it. > > It the parses all files and then creates an SWF of those files with > dependencies. > > The SWF file is then used to write out the js using a JBurg bottom up > reducer/emitter. I am sure these were the classes you were looking at. > > The JSEmitter is something that probably could be hacked into but, I would > make sure you have a baseline before you do. > > The thing is, everytime I write about this framework I am learning more. It > seems to me the IBackend interface could be golden. > > If you look the Only time JSEmitter is created is in a call to; > > - JSBackend.createEmitter(ICompilationUnit.Operation, ICompilerProject) > > This means we could swap out emitters at runtime! I still need to > investigate this further and don't take anything I say as gold right now, > I'm still learning myself. > > NOTE: The first thing I am going to experiement with is "how modular" the > IBackend really is and what it would enable us todo as far as creating > different implementations of emitters. > > Mike > > > > > > > - [0] > http://markmail.org/message/e3szly6i6ejq56eg?q=+list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Eflex-dev&page=6 > > > > Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>: > >> Mike, >> >> Can you explain a little bit (maybe in pseudo-code or whatever) about >> how the AS3 -> Falcon -> FalsonJS -> JS 'compilation' process works? >> What I'm looking for is an idea of how the JS output is put together, >> if you will. Example: how easy (or difficult) is it to exchange one JS >> "class" creation method for another? Right now it's "Class = >> adobe.extend(arg, arg, { theClassBody })". Is it a lot of effort to >> change that output to something like "function Class() { theClassBody >> }"? >> >> I did look at some of the Java classes that seemed relevant, but soon >> realised that without first having some idea of the concepts involved, >> "use the Force, read the source" wasn't going to be a useful way to >> spend my time ;-) >> >> EdB >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Michael Schmalle >> <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: >>> >>> It's not that you can't use a framework and "vanilla" js, it's that it >>> has >>> been shown that these candy frameworks that hide vanilla method calls to >>> the >>> DOM severely kill performance. ... For the sake of just entering a $() >>> dollar sign? That's a crazy tradeoff but thousands do it everyday. For >>> alittle dev time saved, you kill the actual applications performance. >>> >>> I was just saying that using AS, you can already have a "framework" you >>> use >>> that is light, but the compiler would transcode it to the fastest >>> possible >>> js implementation, since it's now hands off. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> Quoting Kessler CTR Mark J <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil>: >>> >>>> Funniest site I've been to today. It's a good point, but it's prob >>>> pretty >>>> difficult to not use a framework at all. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Justin Mclean [mailto:justinmcl...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Justin >>>> Mclean >>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 18:21 >>>> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [FalconJS] concepts >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> And to eliminate the 'IF' from your conditional statement, just a quick >>>>> one: >>>>> http://jsperf.com/jqury-vs-plainjs >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Slightly off topic but amusing all the same: >>>> http://vanilla-js.com >>>> >>>> Reinforces the point that if you want pure performance don't use a >>>> framework and as we're generating the JS there's probably no need to use >>>> one, especially one as heavy as jQuery. >>>> >>>> Justin >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC >>> http://www.teotigraphix.com >>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
