I barely touch mobile (at the moment). If I did I would probably be interested.
I'm hoping someone else picks up on this…
Harbs
On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Daniel Freeman wrote:
> I wrote one of those. I wrote SVG -> AS3 graphics. And extending that
> class, I wrote FXG -> AS3 graphics.
>
>
Sorry, I read this thread too quickly, and without thinking. FXG -> SVG.
I was talking about going in the other direction. Parsing and displaying
SVG or FXG in Flash (Dynamically, at run time). Nevertheless, if someone
is interested in that - you may find my comment useful.
On Sat, Mar 23, 20
I wrote one of those. I wrote SVG -> AS3 graphics. And extending that
class, I wrote FXG -> AS3 graphics.
It wasn't a complete implementation of the SVG or FXG standards. It didn't
handle text, and complex gradients weren't perfect. The FXG class was
based on Adobe's first FXG definition. But
Quoting Alex Harui :
In my simple mind, Falcon generates the AST then at some point in time the
futures task for that compilation unit is asked for output. Current Falcon
code calls the BURM which eventually calls an emitter, I'm assuming FalconJX
does an AST tree walk instead of calling the B
In my simple mind, Falcon generates the AST then at some point in time the
futures task for that compilation unit is asked for output. Current Falcon
code calls the BURM which eventually calls an emitter, I'm assuming FalconJX
does an AST tree walk instead of calling the BURM. There is no reducti
BTW,
I have not seen one thing that you are asking for that doesn't contain
an AST and node framework in the Falcon package.
If it was me, I would create all the emitters exactly the same way be
parsing the file, handling the AST, traversing it while outputting to
the target, then writing
Quoting Alex Harui :
On 3/15/13 1:14 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
The problem is, SWF is so
interconnected in the generator packages that you might have a problem
getting a polarity with using the BURM.
Don't know what "polarity" meant, but hopefully it doesn't really matter.
Bad word
On 3/15/13 1:14 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
> The problem is, SWF is so
> interconnected in the generator packages that you might have a problem
> getting a polarity with using the BURM.
Don't know what "polarity" meant, but hopefully it doesn't really matter.
>
> On that note; This would t
There is no major surgery anywhere.
If you study the framework like I have, there is really only one way
to assemble a compiler in Falcon.
What I haven't done is allow for this other processing (css,
properties). Honestly this has not even fit into a use case for me and
I never thought ab
I'll leave the question on how much FalconJx is different from
FalconJS - and if you can "just copy" stuff over - to Mike. I'm just
the guy who copy-pastes (?) bits of code around and tries to look cool
doing it.
Mike?
EdB
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/15/13
On 3/15/13 12:56 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>> don't believe that any of the work I am doing is wasted. FalconJS is not
>> the competition, it is just a stop-gap place for me to experiment until
>> FalconJX catches up.
>
> Ok, I wrote too long a statement (as ususal). The TL;DR version is: i
> don't believe that any of the work I am doing is wasted. FalconJS is not
> the competition, it is just a stop-gap place for me to experiment until
> FalconJX catches up.
Ok, I wrote too long a statement (as ususal). The TL;DR version is: if
you continue to work on FalconJS, I won't be able to k
On 3/15/13 11:54 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>> My personal goals:
>> 1) For the year: get a major Adobe customer to buy into using this
>> technology. This helps ensure I can continue to work on it full time. I
>> will shift my priorities in order to grab such a customer. For example
>> tod
> My personal goals:
> 1) For the year: get a major Adobe customer to buy into using this
> technology. This helps ensure I can continue to work on it full time. I
> will shift my priorities in order to grab such a customer. For example
> today I am enhancing HTTPService because a potential cust
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> I think we need one "little big" push to get FlexJS to work on
> FalconJx. From that point on, all of these efforts will be on one
> stack (Falcon - FalconJx - output classes/modules/plugins). This
> integration will benefit all of these co
On 3/15/13 10:00 AM, "Om" wrote:
>> Once this ever extending forced (or self imposed?) period of
>> inactivity while we wait for git might be just the thing we need to
>> synchronise our efforts and (dare one say it...) talk about a near
>> future roadmap a bit?
>>
>> EdB
>>
>
> +1 for som
Quoting Om :
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Michael Schmalle
wrote:
BTW,
When I say I am not interested in the view cross compilation... All that
means is that I am saying don't wait for me to implement any of it. I am
being very direct in what my goals are with FlaconJx anyways, I just wa
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> I think we need one "little big" push to get FlexJS to work on
> FalconJx. From that point on, all of these efforts will be on one
> stack (Falcon - FalconJx - output classes/modules/plugins). This
> integration will benefit all of these com
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Michael Schmalle
wrote:
> BTW,
>
> When I say I am not interested in the view cross compilation... All that
> means is that I am saying don't wait for me to implement any of it. I am
> being very direct in what my goals are with FlaconJx anyways, I just wanted
> so
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> FWIW, Peter and I are pretty much done with the basic set of unstyleable,
> unskinnable HTML4 components. Peter and I were going to work on styleable
> HTML4 components next then tackle HTML5 and bitmap skinning, but maybe we
> should jump to
Nobody said it was simple... it's just that he put it together really
quickly ;-)
EdB
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Sebastian Mohr wrote:
> Thanks Om,
>
> Didn't expect that the FXG to SVG interoperability could be so simple. Will
> think about its implications :)
>
>
> --
> Sebastian (PPMC
I think we need one "little big" push to get FlexJS to work on
FalconJx. From that point on, all of these efforts will be on one
stack (Falcon - FalconJx - output classes/modules/plugins). This
integration will benefit all of these components in that we can report
bugs and define requirements back
Thanks Om,
Didn't expect that the FXG to SVG interoperability could be so simple. Will
think about its implications :)
--
Sebastian (PPMC)
Interaction Designer
Looking for a Login Example with Apache Flex? Please check out this code:
http://code.google.com/p/masuland/wiki/LoginExample
On Fr
BTW,
When I say I am not interested in the view cross compilation... All
that means is that I am saying don't wait for me to implement any of
it. I am being very direct in what my goals are with FlaconJx anyways,
I just wanted something that would cross compile actionscript to a
multiple
FWIW, Peter and I are pretty much done with the basic set of unstyleable,
unskinnable HTML4 components. Peter and I were going to work on styleable
HTML4 components next then tackle HTML5 and bitmap skinning, but maybe we
should jump to wrapping the HTML5 components so you can try getting your
ski
My iPhone 5 shows the red square with rounded corner, text above it
and within it and an onclick alert.
EdB
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Om wrote:
> BTW, the html svg part works fine on the Android browser as well, with
> exactly the same look and feel as the Flex app!
>
> Can someone test
BTW, the html svg part works fine on the Android browser as well, with
exactly the same look and feel as the Flex app!
Can someone test on an iOS device, please?
Thanks,
Om
On Mar 15, 2013 4:03 AM, "Om" wrote:
> I quickly whipped up a proof of concept proving the FXG to SVG
> interoperability.
Right,
And this is why I wrote another compiler for as to js. Try doing what
you want with the FalconJS code base, good luck, if you can I salute
you.
Don't take what I said as arrogance, I am saying I am a framework
architect, I can't concern myself with what you are worried about. I
h
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Michael Schmalle
wrote:
> Om,
>
> At this point and time, I am not worried about rendering. I am more
> concerned about straight business logic getting cross compiled.
>
>
I am worried about it and hence scratching my itch :-) I have not seen any
proposal better t
Om,
At this point and time, I am not worried about rendering. I am more
concerned about straight business logic getting cross compiled.
This is probably why you have heard anything, I talk a lot on this
forum and haven't said anything about it. :)
I don't even own up to date Adobe program
30 matches
Mail list logo
