Building for both jvm and js, do the `actual` impl...

# multiplatform

[hallvard]

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()?

[gildor]

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

[hallvard]

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.

[gildor]

Sure, you can have aliases

[gildor]

I just not sure about your use case. Do you want to use them from Js?

[hallvard]

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.)