This is great news, Mike! I will also try to dig into your code this weekend. In the meantime, I've been busy figuring out the "essence" of a new JavaScript runtime format that uses the principles described in my blog, but relies on RequireJS (not goog!) and ECMAScript 5 API, making it way more concise than the current Jangaroo Runtime. For IE8 and other non-ES5 browsers, we would then use polyfills for all ES5 functions used. Let's see if I can get an approval from my company to contribute; if it takes too long, I'd blog about the concepts and you or someone else would have to implement them. Greetings -Frank-
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com>wrote: > Not really, > > I rebuilt everything from scratch. Yes I copied about half the code in > pieces. I purposely put it all back together myself so I knew what was > going on. So every class in the committed code was assembled by me, to > figure out it's function if relevant to the new design. > > Besides most of it had either be deleted of changed because I am not > targeting SWF what so ever. > > I tried to stick with the same base implementation so we kept the > multi-threaded Falcon parsing. > > Take a look at the org.apache.flex.compiler.**internal.js.codegen package. > > Specifically ASBlockWalker from that class alone you should see that this > is a completely different implementation. > > A note to others looking at the code, in the ASBlockWalker I have mixed > some javascript emitting specific to the closure compiler. I want to change > this and have a base class not dependent on anything but to be able to > override it. > > Case in point, most expressions and statements map the same in AS to JS, > so having a base implementation not tied to anything will be a positive > thing. I also don't like mixing design specific things in the base > traversing class, another reason why I want an abstract base or two. > > Anyway, very prototype code and I reserve the right to yank things around. > :) I just wanted to get it up to show others there might be an easier and > more flexible way to get to where we need to go without the BURM. > > Mike > > > > > > Quoting Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>: > > I will try to look this weekend. >> >> Can you briefly describe the important files to look at? Did you copy the >> FalconJS files then do most of your work in a few of them? >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> >> On 12/13/12 3:37 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Well, I spent the last 4 days working on this to where it was >>> something we all could start talking about. >>> >>> Is it viable?, I really think so. I have spent a lot of time tinkering >>> with the framework, take a look. It's in my whiteboard for now under 2 >>> Eclipse projects. >>> >>> I know there was just a discussion about .project files but I >>> committed the .project and .classpath for both application and test >>> project, just like the rest of Falcon. >>> >>> I'm working on more documentation. A thing to note about the code, my >>> goal is to product ActionScript first, I will explain my thinking >>> later but, since I'm the one putting this together, that is what I >>> decided was best for testing first. Once we get all ActionScript >>> generating, we start overriding things for JavaScript specific >>> implementations. >>> >>> Source [0] >>> >>> Right now I have 103 unit tests ALL passing for expressions and >>> statements. Its a good start. >>> >>> Note; I have not don't a build file, if anybody wants to go for it. >>> Please, I hate them. :) >>> >>> Peace, >>> Mike >>> >>> - [0] https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/** >>> mschmalle/<https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/flex/whiteboard/mschmalle/> >>> >> >> -- >> Alex Harui >> Flex SDK Team >> Adobe Systems, Inc. >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >> >> >> > -- > Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC > http://www.teotigraphix.com > http://blog.teotigraphix.com > >
