On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> adobe.classes["com.example.components.MyTextButton"] > = com.example.components.MyTextButton; > [#Remove line, obsolete] > I think I can imagine why the original author (Bernd?) added this output. Using nested JavaScript objects to represent packages is nice, because it resembles the ActionScript syntax, but has a runtime penalty for nested packages (serveral property accesses instead of one) which may be hard to optimize for GCC. Also, it pollutes the global scope, because all top-level packages (here: "com") are added as properties of the global object. Imagine someone calls a package "alert.acme.flex"! Thus, it could be an option to only add packages to a global PACKAGES hash (which is in turn inside the "apacheflex" namespace or whatever we'll name the global framework object), and only copy those packages/classes to the more JavaScript-friendly format which are "exported".
