The one that Kevin proposed below (jangaroo) and you keep talking about
licensing it :).
Sorry if that wasn't clear but trying follow the wave here.
Dan
On 11/28/2012 6:50 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
On 11/28/12 10:35 AM, "Daniel Wasilewski" wrote:
What I have noticed up there as well, this pro
On 11/28/12 10:35 AM, "Daniel Wasilewski" wrote:
> What I have noticed up there as well, this project not only have JS bits
> implemented to mimic flash player, but Action Script bits as well with
> lots of missing features.
> I see the point behind this idea, and the guys were trying to find
On 11/28/12 10:09 AM, "Kevin Newman" wrote:
> What's required for the legal ok? Is that like a full copyright/patent
> audit? Or is it more of checking the license requirements, or getting
> signoff from the current copyright holder? Or both? Or something else? :-)
>
> It's already licensed u
What I have noticed up there as well, this project not only have JS bits
implemented to mimic flash player, but Action Script bits as well with
lots of missing features.
I see the point behind this idea, and the guys were trying to find a
common ground between both platforms. But ended up rewrit
What's required for the legal ok? Is that like a full copyright/patent
audit? Or is it more of checking the license requirements, or getting
signoff from the current copyright holder? Or both? Or something else? :-)
It's already licensed under Apache 2.0, so that's a good start.
Anyway, a lot
I don't think we need it. But if folks want to try, they need to make sure
it is legally ok with Apache if we do so.
On 11/28/12 8:30 AM, "Kevin Newman" wrote:
> Here are theAS3 -> JS externs that Jangaroo's AS3 Flash API is built on:
> https://github.com/CoreMedia/jangaroo-libs/tree/master/ja
Here are theAS3 -> JS externs that Jangaroo's AS3 Flash API is built on:
https://github.com/CoreMedia/jangaroo-libs/tree/master/jangaroo-browser/src/main/joo/js
Kevin N.
On 11/28/12 11:04 AM, Kevin Newman wrote:
Could always use (easiest) or port Jangaroo's implementation (it's
written in AS3
Could always use (easiest) or port Jangaroo's implementation (it's
written in AS3 - might even be able to port it to compile under FalconJS).
https://github.com/CoreMedia/jangaroo-libs/tree/master/jooflash/src/main/joo
Kevin N.
On 11/28/12 12:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
There is no flash API em
Kudos do Gordon and the left team.
If you guys want diff way of literals or sort of, dig into the code, make a
patch and send to us.
We'd love to see inovation.
Igor Costa
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Keep in mind that not all of the code
Keep in mind that not all of the code you see in the demo was donated.
There is no flash API emulation, only AST to JS.
On 11/27/12 3:42 PM, "Daniel Wasilewski" wrote:
> And in this article there is a link to:
>
> http://tv.adobe.com/watch/flex-community-summit-december-2011/open-discussion-
>
Hmm... I just actually managed to see that keynote to the very end.
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/flex-community-summit-december-2011/open-discussion-about-falcon-and-falconjs
And if you can't see that full responsibility of success of this project
(due to Adobe representatives attitude and goal) is
And in this article there is a link to:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/flex-community-summit-december-2011/open-discussion-about-falcon-and-falconjs
Just seek to frame 4:46 and in front of your eyes:
Pros:
supported existing Flex SDK
leverage FB tooling
Cons:
Not as HTMLey' SEO
*potentially not as
On 11/27/12 5:56 PM, Daniel Wasilewski wrote:
However, when comes to FalconJS the task is to use strict proper OOP
language like AS3 to translate into JS. In my humble opinion, this is
what is all about, to protect us and give us more robust development
environment and target the platform we
The original developer of FalconJS seems to have lots of good information about
it and the things he considered in blog posts at:
http://blogs.adobe.com/bparadie/tag/falconjs/page/4/
I didn't find a good list of just the relevant posts, but they all seem to be
available at the link above if you
No no, don't shout up :) keep going.
I have read the article provided by you carefully.
If you will copy and paste it, and prepare a little function to
find/replace this sentence
"The simplest way to create a module in JavaScript is to use an *object
literal"* with "*prototype*"
The rest of
One more thought (yes, I really can't help myself):
Google chose to go with closures (obviously), and I'm sure they care
about all the stuff you mention... And I'd say they have some
experience with building and maintaining large javascript projects. As
does Yahoo (YUI), jQuery and I'm sure others
On 11/27/12 2:11 PM, Daniel Wasilewski wrote:
On 11/27/2012 6:36 PM, Kevin Newman wrote:
definitions be outside the testing loop
Very good point :)
Just modified this test up there
http://jsperf.com/closures-vs-objects-vs-object-literals-vs-prototype/5
And will prepare the one, that has inher
On 11/27/2012 6:36 PM, Kevin Newman wrote:
definitions be outside the testing loop
Very good point :)
Just modified this test up there
http://jsperf.com/closures-vs-objects-vs-object-literals-vs-prototype/5
And will prepare the one, that has inheritance involved as well.
Dan
Shouldn't the Function (class) definitions be outside the testing loop?
Kevin N.
Erik,
If you don't care about memory consumption, output file size, long
prototype chain, inheritance, slow downs on bigger structures than 1
plain objects... use it.
Again, not saying let's prefer or favour one of the method over another,
those things keeps changing over the time.
This test
Nice, thank you!
EdB
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/27/12 12:06 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
>> Alex,
>>
>> You keep referring to a "prototype". I might be missing something.
>> Where can I find it/how do I run it?
>>
> I need management sign off before I can
On 11/27/12 12:06 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
> Alex,
>
> You keep referring to a "prototype". I might be missing something.
> Where can I find it/how do I run it?
>
I need management sign off before I can check it in. One of the managers
returns from vacation today so hopefully you will see
Dan,
This is my last comment on the subject, as I foresee another endless
discussion, but:
Closure (Module Pattern) outperforms any other 'style' at least 2 to 1
on the test you quote, yet you recommend that we don't use it?
EdB
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Daniel Wasilewski wrote:
> I'l
For my prototype work I have been using a C# to JS compiler called SharpiKit.
It might be useful to look at how they are generating code as it works pretty
damn well. Also, their output is easily captured by the closure compiler and
made even more optimal.
It is not perfect but has about the be
I'll try to help Alex :)
But he may correct me if I am wrong.
I believe this little test will show full picture and all 4 common
styles of JS programming we are talking about here.
Notice there is nothing about inheritance, just plain objects (classes)
Once inheritance is involved things are
Alex,
You keep referring to a "prototype". I might be missing something.
Where can I find it/how do I run it?
EdB
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/26/12 1:15 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>
>>> Instead, I want to leverage what is there, and specifically disallow
By a term API I've understood something that JS developers use to call
'syntactic sugar' witch seems to be a necessity if you need to use
/leverage one of the popular patterns on top of native/standard JS. They
keep saying about a beauty and flexibility of JS, then, inventing some
patterns and
On 11/26/12 1:15 PM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>> Instead, I want to leverage what is there, and specifically disallow support
>> for Flash APIs that will be hard to implement, at least in the early going.
>> In fact, the right test when building an app in this new framework would be
>> to not im
>> Me, I don't like to have to use a 'framework' (even a tiny one) to
>> make something happen. It adds a layer between the code and the
>> execution that I think we don't need and therefor should avoid. As
>> others have pointed out, maintaining performance will be major
>> challenge, so using JS
On 11/26/12 11:12 AM, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
>> Looks like we'll have some fun debating which JS pattern to use. In a five
>> minute drive-by of the Module Pattern, I found this [1].
>
> The internet is split 50-50 on this subject, as is usual for these
> types of discussions. Having read a
> Looks like we'll have some fun debating which JS pattern to use. In a five
> minute drive-by of the Module Pattern, I found this [1].
The internet is split 50-50 on this subject, as is usual for these
types of discussions. Having read a few more articles on this and
similar subjects over the la
On 11/26/12 3:10 AM, "Daniel Wasilewski" wrote:
>
> I wonder how Falcon will deal with a display list.
> Is it going to be similar to the output of Edge? Or just Canvas based api?
Falcon doesn't deal with the display list, it deals with libraries and for
Flash apps, one of them (playerglobal.
Looks like we'll have some fun debating which JS pattern to use. In a five
minute drive-by of the Module Pattern, I found this [1].
I'm not advocating one pattern vs the other. I'm still wondering why basic
object/prototype wasn't good enough.
The current FalconJS pattern is based on [2]. I'm
Ok, simple example implementation of the use of the Module Pattern in
combination with the Google Closure Compiler can be found here:
https://www.ixsoftware.nl/apache-flex/falcon-poc/compile.php
It basically takes 2 "class" files, and puts them through the GCC
(ADVANCED optimisation) and runs the
That's sounds promising. Having ability to specify grammar on output
will give Falcon a lot more horse power.
I was pointing at HaXe JS output as an example, because it is the best
(performance/footprint wise) out there.
However scope and chain of accessibility in JS slowing down a lot.
And the
Hi,
FYI, I'm working on an POC for using a Module Pattern combined with
Google Closure annotations to get a Javascript class as close to AS3
as I can get it. This might serve as a starting point for defining the
FalconJS output.
EdB
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
>
> O
On 11/24/12 3:42 PM, "Daniel Wasilewski" wrote:
> And here is a little example of
> the very nature of this problem:
>
> http://jsperf.com/object-create-with-object-literal-vs-prototype
I must be missing something, but I don't see where the output code calls
Object.create().
>
> We don't kno
I'm a JS newbie. What other output would be more desirable and why?
Well, I am JS newbie too. I guess even bigger than you ;)
But after Adobe ceased a fire on Flash Mobile Plug-in (that was 3times
faster in execution speed that any JS comparable code on flash capable
mobile devices) I've sp
On 11/24/12 8:53 AM, "Daniel Wasilewski" wrote:
> 2 questions:
>
> 1. Why literal notation for JS output? Is it the only output mode available?
I'm a JS newbie. What other output would be more desirable and why?
> 2. adobe.extend / adobe.classes? shouldn't be apache?
Well, it shouldn't be "
Quoting Daniel Wasilewski :
2 questions:
1. Why literal notation for JS output? Is it the only output mode available?
I have no idea, this is a prototype. It uses JBurg which is a bottom
up rewritter so I guess anything could be emitted based on the
semantics of the js language.
2. ado
2 questions:
1. Why literal notation for JS output? Is it the only output mode available?
2. adobe.extend / adobe.classes? shouldn't be apache?
Dan
On 11/24/2012 1:00 PM, Michael Schmalle wrote:
Hey,
I try to avoid the command line when ever possible. :)
I set up a simple runner just like we
Hey,
I try to avoid the command line when ever possible. :)
I set up a simple runner just like we did in functional testing using the;
MXMLJSC.main(args);
For those that are interested, MainCode.as;
package
{
public class MainCode
{
public function MainCode()
Sure.. just commited.
Cyrill
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Please checkin your changes to build.xml, the manifest, and make a note in
> the README.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 11/23/12 11:27 PM, "Cyrill Zadra" wrote:
>
>> Finally .. I could compile a js file Yihaa ;-)
Please checkin your changes to build.xml, the manifest, and make a note in
the README.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 11/23/12 11:27 PM, "Cyrill Zadra" wrote:
> Finally .. I could compile a js file Yihaa ;-).
>
> There were 2 things todo:
>
> 1) I had to remove the absolute path in the MANIFEST.MF to th
Finally .. I could compile a js file Yihaa ;-).
There were 2 things todo:
1) I had to remove the absolute path in the MANIFEST.MF to the falcon
compiler.jar through a relative one.
2) The command ./bin/mxmlc MainCode.as returns a
java.lang.NullPointerException
at java.io.File.(File.j
On 11/23/12 10:19 PM, "Cyrill Zadra" wrote:
> One step further. Could execute the ant target jar and it created all
> the libraries.
>
> Now I've got following exception.
>
> tiezad@elitebook-zadra /cygdrive/c/dev/apache-flex/falcon/compiler.js/bin
> $ ./mxmlc ../test/TestApp.as
> Using Falc
One step further. Could execute the ant target jar and it created all
the libraries.
Now I've got following exception.
tiezad@elitebook-zadra /cygdrive/c/dev/apache-flex/falcon/compiler.js/bin
$ ./mxmlc ../test/TestApp.as
Using Falcon codebase: ./../../compiler
Using Flex SDK: ./../../compiler/ge
Try taking out that line.
On 11/23/12 9:04 PM, "Cyrill Zadra" wrote:
> Tried it again still the same but it occurs on line 231:
>
> BUILD FAILED
> C:\dev\apache-flex\falcon\compiler.js\build.xml:231: Warning: Could
> not find resource file
> "C:\dev\apache-flex\falcon\compiler.js\build\lib\asc
Tried it again still the same but it occurs on line 231:
BUILD FAILED
C:\dev\apache-flex\falcon\compiler.js\build.xml:231: Warning: Could
not find resource file
"C:\dev\apache-flex\falcon\compiler.js\build\lib\asc.jar" to copy.
Cyrill
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Hmm. M
Hmm. My system must be ignoring those errors. Not sure why. I updated the
build.xml. Please try again.
On 11/23/12 7:01 PM, "Cyrill Zadra" wrote:
> Looks like it's working again.
>
> I run into another problem. The directory lib/google/closure-compiler
> wasn't created.
> Updated the down
Looks like it's working again.
I run into another problem. The directory lib/google/closure-compiler
wasn't created.
Updated the download.xml to create that directory.
After that I get also the same error as mike.
>BUILD FAILED
>C:\dev\apache-flex\falcon\compiler.js\build.xml:136: Warning: Coul
Unable to download antlr stuff. Hopefully this is a temporary issue:
download-jar:
[get] Getting: http://www.antlr.org/download/antlr-3.3-complete.jar
[get] To:
C:\p\flex_os\workspace\flexroot\falcon\trunk\compiler.js\lib\ant
lr.jar
[get] Error opening connection java.io.IOExcep
On 11/23/12 3:32 PM, "Michael Schmalle" wrote:
> Looks like it's going to take a bit of time digesting for myself. :)
>
> Next week I will write a wiki page explaining what I "See", if anybody
> else wants to join in...
>
> Definitely a WIP though.
>
> Thanks for your effort Alex.
>
> Did
Looks like it's going to take a bit of time digesting for myself. :)
Next week I will write a wiki page explaining what I "See", if anybody
else wants to join in...
Definitely a WIP though.
Thanks for your effort Alex.
Did we have to rebuild the comiler? I didn't see if it copies asc.jar
It is in the falcon folder under trunk/compiler.js.
Happy cross-compiling!
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
55 matches
Mail list logo
