![]() | ![]() Products ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Home » Technical Support » Elevate Web Builder Technical Support » Support Forums » Elevate Web Builder General » View Thread |
Messages 1 to 6 of 6 total |
![]() |
Wed, Mar 6 2013 8:46 PM | Permanent Link |
Robert Devine | Hi Tim
Is it possible to switch off the name mangling of, e.g., property names? Also, I think you mentioned that you'd be making the compiler available from a command line - could you do the same with the minifier so I can compile and minify in separate steps? Cheers, Bob |
Thu, Mar 7 2013 5:26 AM | Permanent Link |
Matthew Jones | Command line is something I'm keen on too, but I'd be happy with options to
compiler, or compile and minify. I imagine that the minification is dependent on compile time information. If not, then separate is good. /Matthew Jones/ |
Thu, Mar 7 2013 11:01 AM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Bob,
<< Is it possible to switch off the name mangling of, e.g., property names? >> I'm not quite sure what you mean. The mangling is the compression aspect of the compiler - if you turn off the compression, then the mangling stops. << Also, I think you mentioned that you'd be making the compiler available from a command line - could you do the same with the minifier so I can compile and minify in separate steps? >> Unfortunately, I can't do that. The compression uses information that is built during the compilation stage. Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Thu, Mar 7 2013 11:21 AM | Permanent Link |
Robert Devine | Hi Tim
If I have a class say TTestObject with a property called "company" then the compiler generates: company -> ttestobj_fcompany I can see why this is done for a self-contained EWB app, but it would be handy to have a command line compiler that generates simple Javascript without the name changes. > Unfortunately, I can't do that Ok, I suspected they might be tightly linked. Thanks, Bob On 07/03/2013 16:01, Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote: > Bob, > > << Is it possible to switch off the name mangling of, e.g., property > names? >> > > I'm not quite sure what you mean. The mangling is the compression > aspect of the compiler - if you turn off the compression, then the > mangling stops. > > << Also, I think you mentioned that you'd be making the compiler > available from a command line - could you do the same with the minifier > so I can compile and minify in separate steps? >> > > Unfortunately, I can't do that. The compression uses information that > is built during the compilation stage. > > Tim Young > Elevate Software > www.elevatesoft.com |
Fri, Mar 8 2013 11:24 AM | Permanent Link |
Tim Young [Elevate Software] Elevate Software, Inc. ![]() | Bob,
<< I can see why this is done for a self-contained EWB app, but it would be handy to have a command line compiler that generates simple Javascript without the name changes. >> What if you include two units, each with a class called TestObject, but referenced by different units in the application ? ![]() I think what you're asking for is the ability to compile a single unit as a ..js file, and yes, this is something that can be added. As long as the compilation is restricted to a single unit, then it will be safe to do what you're saying. Tim Young Elevate Software www.elevatesoft.com |
Sat, Mar 9 2013 9:54 AM | Permanent Link |
Robert Devine | Hi Tim
Just realised I sent my last reply to your email. Actually, even given the potential conflicts, I would need it to be switchable at the project level, otherwise I'd have to write external interface units to the generated JS! Cheers, Bob On 09/03/2013 10:58, Bob Devine wrote:> Hi Tim > > >the ability to compile a single unit as a .js file > > Yes that's exactly what I'm looking for. I appreciate that this could > cause you support headaches if allowed at the project level for > exactly the name conflicts you mention - maybe implemented to operate > on a single unit? The stripping of redundant code would also have to > be switched off. > > Cheers, Bob > > > > On 08/03/2013 16:24, Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote: >> Bob, >> >> << I can see why this is done for a self-contained EWB app, but it would >> be handy to have a command line compiler that generates simple >> Javascript without the name changes. >> >> >> What if you include two units, each with a class called TestObject, but >> referenced by different units in the application ? ![]() >> >> I think what you're asking for is the ability to compile a single unit >> as a .js file, and yes, this is something that can be added. As long as >> the compilation is restricted to a single unit, then it will be safe to >> do what you're saying. >> >> Tim Young >> Elevate Software >> www.elevatesoft.com > |
This web page was last updated on Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:08 AM | Privacy Policy![]() © 2023 Elevate Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved Questions or comments ? ![]() |