Building for both jvm and js, do the

actual

implementations in js need to have the same package names as in jvm? I have some simple data classes, and accessing them in jvm is a matter of using an import statement in the top of the file and then going directly at them by name, but in the js file I have compiled, it seems I have to go the long way with

com.company.project.dataclass

names. Should I just define aliases right away when

$(document).ready()

?

yes, package name should be the same, otherwise it’s impossible to map expect to actual

But I guess I could just put the aliases in the js folder, at the no-package base level, and make them point into the package hierarchy, thus making the compiler put the aliases in the js-compiled part of the project and not having to do that myself, every time, on the client side.

Sure, you can have aliases

Yes. What I compile in my mpp is basically just static values. I communicate from clientside js with the server through websockets, and the mpp guarantees I use the same keys and values on the client and on the server in the json objects I send back and forth. So the use case is − mostly − just setting

Keys.someKey

to

Values.someValue

. (I also have some functions to construct json objects according to certain constraints, but the irritating part was mainly having to write

com.company.project.Keys.somekey

instead of just

Keys.someKey

.)