[osflash] FLA2MXML per JSFL - any thoughts?

[Tim Scollick]

> doesn't require that the SWF be created with the IDE

In your scenario, what would you create the swf with?  Another .swf with a
stage, a library and a styling mechanism?  Xml?

I think that the advantage of using the IDE is that you get all of the Flash
features that we're used to like layers, nesting and align, etc to arrange
the components.  Although, I will admit having the IDE open is a shortcoming
in this scenario.

On 7/11/06, Chris Allen <mrchrisallen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's true John, but I like the idea of using a SWF and SWFMill as
> that means it can be run from the command line and doesn't require
> that the SWF be created with the IDE, or that the IDE be open with the
> FLA. SWFMill will generate an XML output of the SWF, so it might be as
> easy as a simple XSLT transformation to MXML. I'm also pretty certain
> that the reverse can be done with SWFMill as well. So XML -> SWFMill
> -> SWF would also be possible. Unfortunately that doesn't get you an
> FLA though.
>
> Anyway, I'm with Luke on this one; it does seem like a weird thing to
> do. Maybe I will understand more of the advantage once it's built
> though.
>
> -Chris
>
> On 7/11/06, John Grden <neoriley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > actually, running through movieclips/timelines in an open FLA can be
> done
> > with JSFL
> >
> >
> > On 7/11/06, Luke Hubbard <luke at codegent.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > AFAIK, its not really possible to parse a FLA file. Its like a brain
> dump
> > of the flash IDE, good for well only the flash IDE. SWF on the other
> hand
> > can be converted into things. So if your idea is FLA -> SWF -> MXML then
> > perhaps look at swfmill I think it can convert a SWF to xml too. Im not
> > totally sure I get why, but then who am I to question those with will.
> Do it
> > for the fun of it.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Luke
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/11/06, John Grden < neoriley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry to be the noob on the block, but how does this work out
> > practically?
> > > >
> > > > I mean, if you have an FLA with movieclips that have movieclips that
> > have movieclips embedded blah blah blah, how's that worked out in
> mxml?  An
> > mxml file for each movieclip?  Ok, I can see that, then you have to come
> up
> > with some logic for packages based on the movieclips
> relationships?  what if
> > the movieclips aren't bound to a class?  where do you park those?  I
> mean,
> > you'd have to create some package/class for each right?
> > > >
> > > > On top of all that, how would you account for movieclips that don't
> show
> > up until frameX?  Would that just be a "state"?
> > > >
> > > > Are you suggesting a full FLA conversion no matter how wacky it is
> or
> > are you thinking just certain types of FLA's that follow some sort of
> > pattern/guideline?
> > > >
> > > > And although it sounds like fun, what'd be the major benefit of
> having
> > something like this?  Just the ability to compile with the new / free /
> fast
> > compiler?  And how would it be apart of someone's work flow?
> > > >
> > > > IE:  Do I have to export everytime I make a change in the FLA, then
> > compile?
> > > > Or, do I create/get the FLA, convert via JSFL command, then edit
> within
> > the mxml after that point?
> > > >
> > > > if it's scenario #2, then what happens to the FLA and it's library
> of
> > assets (bitmaps, sound, flv)?  do you export all of them out, then embed
> for
> > the application to use?
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like fun, and would be interesting to see, but not sure that
> > starting from scratch wouldn't be better/easier.  I mean, sounds like if
> > Flasc could work to be used with the new compiler of MTASC, that'd
> pretty
> > well help out with the problem that this might solve.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, just thinking off the top of my head, it DOES sound like fun
> ;)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/11/06, Michael Stuhr < michael.stuhr at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ralf Bokelberg schrieb:
> > > > > > Nice idea, but the question is, what to do with the resulting
> mxml?
> > > > > send it to the free compiler, and lets see what results we get :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > point is: the free compiler needs a layout tool like flex has one.
> > > > >
> > > > > it's a 'nische', and if it isn't too complicated one should try.
> > > > >
> > > > > micha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > osflash mailing list
> > > > > osflash at osflash.org
> > > > >
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > John Grden
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > osflash mailing list
> > > > osflash at osflash.org
> > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > osflash mailing list
> > > osflash at osflash.org
> > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John Grden
> > _______________________________________________
> > osflash mailing list
> > osflash at osflash.org
> > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> osflash mailing list
> osflash at osflash.org
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://osflash.org/pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/attachments/20060711/fcfb45b4/attachment-0001.htm