Very feasible, and the combined bundle is ahead of the two standalones... although there are points where they need to merge/work out which solution is best.
Personally I don't mind. I'd be happy to see it broken up on the grounds that the bundle title is far far too long at the moment ;) One thing I'd be concerned about is a possible duplication of build and help commands and their associated TM_BUNDLE_SUPPORT/bin and lib files. But this is coming from a bundle developer perspective and we should focus on the end user so can't be used as a reason not to.
Allan - any chance of getting a TextMate icon for .mxml files?
My personal opinion is that even moderate-to-high amounts of merging and patching are preferable to dividing our efforts among multiple projects.
LOL! Well, how about we do this: Let's break your bundle into its component Flex2 and AS3 parts and get Allan to commit the results to the new review/bundles branch of subversion. Then those of us who have worked on other Flex-related bundles (and anyone else who wants to, really) can check them over and sound off about/merge things we think are missing or in need of update. Sound like a plan? Will you need any help in the splitting of the bundle?
What does everyone else think?
Cheers, -Joshua Emmons
Agreed !
Sound like a plan? Will you need any help in the splitting of the bundle?
It's done and the new bundles are in the repository - under the Review branch. I've also removed a few commands which didn't seem essential.
Feedback, changes, updates, etc etc are all very welcome.
Take it easy, Simon
I'm looking at the definition of the mx:Script tag. It seems to differ from the way other tags are supported. For one, the < and > characters do not include the meta.tag label and are thus not properly colored. Also - and of less importance (to me) - the punctuation.definition.tag.(m)xml label is missing from the bracket and slash characters.
-dave
On 4/25/07, Simon Gregory simon@helvector.org wrote:
The way I dealt with this was to match the script tags with a look behind and look ahead. Both are zero-width, and thus don't actually include the script tags themselves in the match, leaving the standard tag matching to do the job.
{ begin = '(?<=mx:Script)'; end = '(?=</mx:Script>)'; patterns = ( { include = '#script-stuff'; } ); }
I then let #script-stuff handle the parsing of internal stuff:
script-stuff = { begin = '<![CDATA['; end = ']]>'; beginCaptures = { 0 = { name = 'string.unquoted.cdata.xml.mxml punctuation.definition.string.begin.xml.mxml'; }; }; endCaptures = { 0 = { name = 'string.unquoted.cdata.xml.mxml punctuation.definition.string.end.xml.mxml'; }; }; patterns = ( { include = 'source.actionscript3'; } ); contentName = 'source.actionscript3.embeded.mxml'; };
This defines the CDATA tags properly and gives everything else the scope of "source.actionscript3.embeded.mxml".
For this to work, though, you need to move the including of text.xml down on the grammar so that it doesn't match the CDATA first.
Looking over the grammar of the Flex2 bundle, I think there is room for a little more specificity. The grammar I've attached deals with the mx:Script tag problem brought up by Dave and also adds scopes for little things like
punctuation.definition.tag.xml.mxml, meta.scope.between-tag-pair.xml.mxml, entity.name.tag.namespace.xml.mxml, punctuation.separator.namespace.xml.mxml, entity.name.tag.localname.xml.mxml, punctuation.definition.tag.xml.mxml, etc.
I'm not sure what all those do, but they're probably important to someone.
Inside a Script block, this assigns a scope of source.actionscript3.embedded.mxml and passes parsing on to source.actionscript3. Inside a Style block it assigns a scope of source.css.embedded.mxml and passes parsing to source.css.
Please also note that the bases for this grammar is text.xml.mxml instead of source.mxml. It seems to me that, being XML, MXML is more properly text than source. But again, that's just one guy's opinion. If you all think it should be source, that's easy to change with a search-and-replace ;-)
I think a text file with the grammar is easier to grok than diffing MXML.tmLanguage plist. But if the diff works better, I can provide that also.
Cheers, -Joshua Emmons
On 26. Apr 2007, at 05:21, Joshua Scott Emmons wrote:
Source is for when text (in the file) is always marked with string quotes, comment markers, here-doc tokens, or similar [1].
So yes, MXML should be text (from what I understand).
[1] A special case is the old-style property list format. This supports unquoted strings, but they are not the norm, and arbitrary text cannot be unquoted, so this one is source.
The grammar I've attached deals with the mx:Script tag problem brought up by Dave and also adds scopes for little things like
I've simply created a new language item from your file and checked it into the repository. It's looking far better already ;) Although I'm colour blind and it took me a while to realise it was actually doing anything (with the Twilight theme)... but that's another story.
The only thing that has occurred to me to do was reverting the scope back to ActionScript 3 in any binding situations. ie
<mx:Component enabled="{ ( objectA.enabled || objB.enabled ) }" />
Yes/No ? Any other suggestions?
Simon
I've been playing with the flex bundles for a while now. It looks like there are lots of different ways of building Flex at this point. I've been using rake: http://theblogthatnoonereads.tunasoft.com/2007/04/29/building-flex-on-rails/
-dave
On 4/26/07, Simon Gregory simon@helvector.org wrote:
-
Allan Odgaard -
Dave Grijalva -
Jacob Rus -
Joshua Emmons -
Joshua Scott Emmons
-
Simon Gregory