You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2013/07/19 08:44:07 UTC
[DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Hi,
Please place any questions, queries or issues you come across while testing Apache Flex 4.10 RC2 in this thread.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Under the section 'Using the Binary Distribution' the part about
> creating an SDK for another IDE is confusing to say the least.
I changed this line, the rest is correct.
To create an SDK for other IDE or if you want to use Adobe AIR 3.8 (rather than
AIR 3.1 contained in Adobe Flex 4.6) run:
> Also: isn't it a bit confusing that if you want to create and SDK for
> 'other IDE', you have to use a script that is called
> "makeApacheFlexForFlashBuilder"?
Yep, it's called that for historical reasons, I'll rename it makeApacheFlexForIDE.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Under the section 'Using the Binary Distribution' the part about
creating an SDK for another IDE is confusing to say the least. It
refers to AIR 3.1 and Flex 4.9, while I believe it should say 3.7 and
4.10.
Also: isn't it a bit confusing that if you want to create and SDK for
'other IDE', you have to use a script that is called
"makeApacheFlexForFlashBuilder"?
EdB
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> In the README under 'Install Prerequisites' item 3, AIR 3.8 is
> referenced. At some point we have to figure out if Adobe will release
> that before we are ready or that we 'revert' to 3.7... Maybe one of
> the Adobe people on this list can make enquiries?
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Justin Mclean
> <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> HI,
>>
>>> The docs and communication refer to "initial" Linux support..
>>
>>
>> On top of my head an in my opinion:
>> - Build process on par with OSX/Windows. (It's actually fairly close.)
>> - Having all of the mustella tests compile.
>> - Ideally having all of the mustella tests pass. (Path issues and old Flash version an issue here)
>> - Having a proper installer for various flavours of Linux (not just a .deb), and having it more integrated into the various software updaters (eg Ububtu Software Centre).
>> - Having a committer or two that are willing to work on improving it (that actually have solid Linux software development experience)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> Is there any details on what is not compatible?
Not really, I would guess that 99% of application would compile with no changes.
The only minor things I can think of are one or two attributes that were protected or internal that are now public, and I think removeAll was added to IList interface, certainly nothing that would case any major issues.
More likely (and that's still very unlikely) you might to run into something that may not work now as your code contains a hack/monkey patch to get around a bug that has been fixed.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Dasa Paddock <dp...@esri.com>.
At the top of the README, it says:
> It is
> compatible with most code written to target Adobe Flex 4.6.
Is there any details on what is not compatible?
Thanks,
--Dasa
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> In the README under 'Install Prerequisites' item 3, AIR 3.8 is
> referenced.
I'm assuming that Adobe will release it before we do.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
In the README under 'Install Prerequisites' item 3, AIR 3.8 is
referenced. At some point we have to figure out if Adobe will release
that before we are ready or that we 'revert' to 3.7... Maybe one of
the Adobe people on this list can make enquiries?
EdB
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Justin Mclean
<ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> HI,
>
>> The docs and communication refer to "initial" Linux support..
>
>
> On top of my head an in my opinion:
> - Build process on par with OSX/Windows. (It's actually fairly close.)
> - Having all of the mustella tests compile.
> - Ideally having all of the mustella tests pass. (Path issues and old Flash version an issue here)
> - Having a proper installer for various flavours of Linux (not just a .deb), and having it more integrated into the various software updaters (eg Ububtu Software Centre).
> - Having a committer or two that are willing to work on improving it (that actually have solid Linux software development experience)
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Ok.
On the build process: isn't the only difference the PixelBender 'installation'?
I think that the Mustella points deserve mentioning in the release notes.
The last 2 are more 'feature requests' for future releases.
EdB
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Justin Mclean
<ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> HI,
>
>> The docs and communication refer to "initial" Linux support..
>
>
> On top of my head an in my opinion:
> - Build process on par with OSX/Windows. (It's actually fairly close.)
> - Having all of the mustella tests compile.
> - Ideally having all of the mustella tests pass. (Path issues and old Flash version an issue here)
> - Having a proper installer for various flavours of Linux (not just a .deb), and having it more integrated into the various software updaters (eg Ububtu Software Centre).
> - Having a committer or two that are willing to work on improving it (that actually have solid Linux software development experience)
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
>> The docs and communication refer to "initial" Linux support..
Also add.
- Document the rather painful process of installing AIR 2.6 on Linux.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> The docs and communication refer to "initial" Linux support..
On top of my head an in my opinion:
- Build process on par with OSX/Windows. (It's actually fairly close.)
- Having all of the mustella tests compile.
- Ideally having all of the mustella tests pass. (Path issues and old Flash version an issue here)
- Having a proper installer for various flavours of Linux (not just a .deb), and having it more integrated into the various software updaters (eg Ububtu Software Centre).
- Having a committer or two that are willing to work on improving it (that actually have solid Linux software development experience)
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
The docs and communication refer to "initial" Linux support... What is
needed to qualify it as "full" Linux support?
EdB
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please place any questions, queries or issues you come across while testing Apache Flex 4.10 RC2 in this thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> 1.) Should FP 11.1 be listed here? It's listed in the README under "Install Prerequisites" item #4.
It's listing the FP versions that have been added singe the 4.9 release, so no need to change this.
> 2.) Should the two lines on AIR be combined into one?
I split into two are one line show newer versions we support than we did and the other shows us supporting older versions than we did (mostly for Linux support). I guess they could be merged into a single line.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Dasa Paddock <dp...@esri.com>.
>From the RELEASE_NOTES:
> AIR and Flash Player support
> ------------------------------
> - Support Flash Player 11.8, 11.7, 11.6 and 11.5.
> - Support for AIR 3.8, 3.7, 3.6 and 3.5.
> - Support for AIR 2.6, 2.7 and 3.0.
1.) Should FP 11.1 be listed here? It's listed in the README under "Install Prerequisites" item #4.
2.) Should the two lines on AIR be combined into one?
--Dasa
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> My guess is that Justin's working copy might have gotten polluted somehow.
As I said before I just ran one of the install scripts over it as part of my testing. It does seem odd that we are using different config files in working SDKs (the installer overwrite them as do the scripts) than what is in version control - seems unnecessary to me.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/21/13 8:37 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>There are diffs between what is in the source repo and the source that
>we distribute... that's confusing and feels wrong. What differences
>are we talking about? If these differences are non-trivial then we (I)
>should set up a testing environment that actually tests what we
>release, not something that vaguely resembles it.
I would have to run a diff or look at the build scripts, but I think that
the source kit is a subset of what is in the repo (mainly, we don't
package all of mustella). My guess is that Justin's working copy might
have gotten polluted somehow.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
There are diffs between what is in the source repo and the source that
we distribute... that's confusing and feels wrong. What differences
are we talking about? If these differences are non-trivial then we (I)
should set up a testing environment that actually tests what we
release, not something that vaguely resembles it.
EdB
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/20/13 11:41 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>>That's interesting... I see only one test fail on the VM:
>>
>>gumbo/components/ListDragDrop/events/SparkDNDList_events
>>ListAbcDND1_dragComplete
>>
>>And that only fails on FP 11.8 and AIR 3.8, not on the x.7 runs.
>>
>>What platform/players are you using?
> Both Mac with 11.1 and Win with 11.7. It appears to be a problem with the
> actual -src.tar.gz and -src.zip files, not with what is checked in to the
> repos, so the VM won't catch that. It would be even more work to have
> jenkins bring down the source kits and run against that.
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/20/13 11:41 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>That's interesting... I see only one test fail on the VM:
>
>gumbo/components/ListDragDrop/events/SparkDNDList_events
>ListAbcDND1_dragComplete
>
>And that only fails on FP 11.8 and AIR 3.8, not on the x.7 runs.
>
>What platform/players are you using?
Both Mac with 11.1 and Win with 11.7. It appears to be a problem with the
actual -src.tar.gz and -src.zip files, not with what is checked in to the
repos, so the VM won't catch that. It would be even more work to have
jenkins bring down the source kits and run against that.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
That's interesting... I see only one test fail on the VM:
gumbo/components/ListDragDrop/events/SparkDNDList_events
ListAbcDND1_dragComplete
And that only fails on FP 11.8 and AIR 3.8, not on the x.7 runs.
What platform/players are you using?
EdB
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> I think there is a problem with the src kits for both Mac and Win. The
> air-config.xml has an external-library-path entry for airglobal.swc that
> doesn't have the {airHome} variable anymore and a mustella test fails
> because it can't resolve for airglobal.swc.
>
> The failing test is:
> gumbo/components/Label/Integration/Label_module_tester1 label_module_test1
>
> -Alex
>
> On 7/18/13 11:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Please place any questions, queries or issues you come across while
>>testing Apache Flex 4.10 RC2 in this thread.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Justin
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@codeoscopic.com>.
+1
just get the time to construct from scratch, create a project in intellij
and was testing various things a some new enhacemnts (like the dataprovider
ones) and all goes well.
Great work so far!! :)
Carlos
2013/7/22 Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>
> This is pretty important IMHO. I know there were a lot of discussions
> about that early on.
>
> -Nick
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > We can go ask the mentors again, but I think it is still
> > important/required to have a configuration where the files are kept
> > separate for license determination purposes. I don't think we can require
> > that everyone overlays the Flash and AIR stuff into their source folders.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
--
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnología
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F: +34 912 94 80 80
http://www.codeoscopic.com
http://www.directwriter.es
http://www.avant2.es
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
This is pretty important IMHO. I know there were a lot of discussions
about that early on.
-Nick
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> We can go ask the mentors again, but I think it is still
> important/required to have a configuration where the files are kept
> separate for license determination purposes. I don't think we can require
> that everyone overlays the Flash and AIR stuff into their source folders.
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/22/13 6:36 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Perhaps we have an issue with .gitignore??
>
>Yep it contains:
>frameworks/flex-config.xml
>frameworks/air-config.xml
>frameworks/airmobile-config.xml
>
>Can someone explain why these were added? We should not be ignoring
>anything that packaged up into a release.
I think I saw in the logs that these files used to be autogenerated? That
may be why they were in gitignore. But yes, makes sense that they
shouldn't be anymore if we have the file under version control.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Perhaps we have an issue with .gitignore??
Yep it contains:
frameworks/flex-config.xml
frameworks/air-config.xml
frameworks/airmobile-config.xml
Can someone explain why these were added? We should not be ignoring anything that packaged up into a release.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
>> Related question: what does 'git status' show for your
> working copy? Doesn't it show that frameworks/air-config.xml is modified?
Nope:
# On branch release4.10.0
nothing to commit, working directory clean
Perhaps we have an issue with .gitignore??
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/22/13 4:27 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>HI,
>
>So what exactly do you think needs to be changed?
I don't think anything needs to change in Git. I think if your local
working copy reflects what is in Git and you haven't run the installer or
any of the ide scripts in that working copy, then if you build another RC
it will work. Related question: what does 'git status' show for your
working copy? Doesn't it show that frameworks/air-config.xml is modified?
I think that's another check: git status should be clean before building
an RC.
>Are the current config file and templates used for generating them
>correct?
I haven't looked closely, but they have been for all other prior RCs and
releases.
>
>Here's a list of all the config files.
>./frameworks/flex-config-template.xml
>./frameworks/flex-config.xml
>./ide/flashbuilder/config/flex-config.xml
>./frameworks/air-config.xml
>./ide/flashbuilder/config/air-config.xml
>./frameworks/airmobile-config.xml
>./ide/flashbuilder/config/airmobile-config.xml
>
>Of all these files only 2 use {airHome} - so it's certainly inconsistent.
Only frameworks/air*-config.xml should have {airHome}. The
frameworks/flex-config.* shouldn't since it doesn't get used for AIR, and
the ones in ide shouldn't because it can rely on having those files mixed
in.
>
> Also the path that do use looks like it assume that AIR is unpacked
>inside a Flex SDK.
> <path-element>{airHome}/frameworks/libs/air</path-element>
>
> Can you submit a patch/make the changes in develop to correct this.
Looks correct for me, and it worked in RC1. My AIR SDK which is external
to my working copy has that exact folder path.
I think if you can restore your working copy to reflect the state of repo
and run the scripts we'll be good to go.
I'm sorry this has been painful but again, I think we have to allow this
configuration with external AIR SDKs, even if it is mostly to satisfy
Apache guidelines.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
So what exactly do you think needs to be changed? Are the current config file and templates used for generating them correct?
Here's a list of all the config files.
./frameworks/flex-config-template.xml
./frameworks/flex-config.xml
./ide/flashbuilder/config/flex-config.xml
./frameworks/air-config.xml
./ide/flashbuilder/config/air-config.xml
./frameworks/airmobile-config.xml
./ide/flashbuilder/config/airmobile-config.xml
Of all these files only 2 use {airHome} - so it's certainly inconsistent.
Also the path that do use looks like it assume that AIR is unpacked inside a Flex SDK.
<path-element>{airHome}/frameworks/libs/air</path-element>
Can you submit a patch/make the changes in develop to correct this.
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/22/13 12:11 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Hmm, no that isn't correct.
>Isn't correct how? It's what the scripts do, they copy the
>ide/flashbuilder/config/*.xml files over the framework ones. We've made 3
>releases with them working that way.
It isn't correct that you "must" convert the source kit to an FB
compatible SDK in order to use it. That's why the scripts you are talking
about are in a folder called "ide". IIRC, back when we were setting this
stuff up, the guidance from the mentors was to make sure we kept
third-party stuff separate so anyone who truly cared could more easily
determine the licensing of the files on their computer. Hence we added
airHome and all of the other additional environment variables, and even
factored out the lib folder into lib, lib/external and
lib/external/optional.
>
>> I'm pretty sure the AIR and probably Mobile runs will completely fail.
>They seem to run fine.
They will not run if you do not convert the folder into an FB-compatible
SDK.
>
>> I have shell scripts that build and debug test apps without FB.
>Are these in version control or documented anywhere?
No, all I'm doing is calling $FLEX_HOME/mxmlc and $FLEX_HOME/fdb, etc, and
I change FLEX_HOME as needed.
We can go ask the mentors again, but I think it is still
important/required to have a configuration where the files are kept
separate for license determination purposes. I don't think we can require
that everyone overlays the Flash and AIR stuff into their source folders.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Hmm, no that isn't correct.
Isn't correct how? It's what the scripts do, they copy the ide/flashbuilder/config/*.xml files over the framework ones. We've made 3 releases with them working that way.
> I'm pretty sure the AIR and probably Mobile runs will completely fail.
They seem to run fine.
> I have shell scripts that build and debug test apps without FB.
Are these in version control or documented anywhere?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/21/13 3:58 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>HI,
>
>> I think you are saying that nobody actually uses the source kits.
>If you use the source kit you still have to turn it into a SDK in order
>to use or test it, in doing that you change the config files which
>removes {airHome}.
Hmm, no that isn't correct. I test the source kit by un-tar-ing or
unzipping it and do not mix any files into it other than what the build
scripts download. I follow the readme which has me install AIR and Flash
and other things somewhere outside the expanded source kit folders.
Mustella is set up to test in this configuration by following the
environment variables in the -config.xml files. I don't ever test the
source kit in FB. If I wanted to do so, I think I would run the
makeApacheFlexForFlashBuilder script which I think copies the SWCs built
from the source folder into a new folder and mixes in the pre-requisite
stuff.
>So why is "{airHome}" needed? And is it only needed for a single Mustella
>test?
I'm pretty sure the AIR and probably Mobile runs will completely fail.
IIRC, we went to great lengths to set up all pre-requisites that do not
have Apache-compatible licenses in folders external to the Apache Flex
source code because our mentors recommended (required?) doing so in order
to help the person who uses the source release determine the provenance of
all of the pieces. That's why the README has all of those environment
variables. It is a separate issue from how the build scripts prompt you
before we start downloading other optional third-party stuff into the
source folders.
This, of course, was too painful for most of our users, and hence we have
an Installer that I'm sure most folks are using. But overlaying the
repo's local working copy seems too risky for me, so I continue to try to
keep Flash and AIR out of my source folders. I have shell scripts that
build and debug test apps without FB.
>
>It easy enough to fix in the next RC but I'd still like to know why the
>change is needed. It takes several hours to create a release candidate so
>I like to make sure this one has all issues sorted before making another
>one.
Well, technically, I'm asking for "no change". RC1 ran successfully.
Prior kits for 4.9.x worked as well. What is checked in has {airhome} and
the source kit should reflect what is checked in. I believe that a diff
of the source kit against the repo is one "test" of the correctness of the
kit. I think sometime between that and RC2 your local working copy got
overlaid.
>
>Anyone run into any other issues?
I ran rat, it looks good. A quick scan of README and RELEASE_NOTES didn't
trigger anything for me.
Sorry that this stuff is so painful, but I think we have to get it right.
Thanks,
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> I think you are saying that nobody actually uses the source kits.
If you use the source kit you still have to turn it into a SDK in order to use or test it, in doing that you change the config files which removes {airHome}. So why is "{airHome}" needed? And is it only needed for a single Mustella test?
It easy enough to fix in the next RC but I'd still like to know why the change is needed. It takes several hours to create a release candidate so I like to make sure this one has all issues sorted before making another one.
Anyone run into any other issues?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/21/13 7:20 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>So other than that is there any other issues?
I haven't tested signatures or reviewed the readme since RC1, but all
other tests passed for me.
>
>So far we have:
>- Minor readme/release note changes
>- AIR config changes that as far as I can see have no real world impact
I think you are saying that nobody actually uses the source kits. You
could be right about that, but I'm pretty sure if {airHome} was removed
from the frameworks/air-config.xml in the repo it would cause the mustella
VM to fail on the AIR run. I don't think it overlays AIR, nor do I think
it should.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
So other than that is there any other issues?
So far we have:
- Minor readme/release note changes
- AIR config changes that as far as I can see have no real world impact
Any advance on that?
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/21/13 1:57 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>I've never run into an issue with a SDK not containing {airHome} in the
>config file - so is this actually required?
I think it is when building AIR SWFs with the source kits which do not
have AIR files overlaid into the sdk folder. If you test binary kits via
the installer then you don't need {airHome}. But as you know, the only
"official" release is the source kit without an AIR overlay. How many of
you who vote test the source kit in this way? Sometimes I think I'm the
only one.
-Alex
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I think there is a problem with the src kits for both Mac and Win. The
> air-config.xml has an external-library-path entry for airglobal.swc that
> doesn't have the {airHome} variable anymore and a mustella test fails
> because it can't resolve for airglobal.swc.
The config files in ide/flashbuilder/config don't contain the {airHome} token in then and they are copied as part of making the SDK (via various shell scripts etc). I assume that at some point while tested 4.10 I've run one of the instal scripts and how those files have changed.
I've never run into an issue with a SDK not containing {airHome} in the config file - so is this actually required?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release Candidate 2
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Hi Justin,
I think there is a problem with the src kits for both Mac and Win. The
air-config.xml has an external-library-path entry for airglobal.swc that
doesn't have the {airHome} variable anymore and a mustella test fails
because it can't resolve for airglobal.swc.
The failing test is:
gumbo/components/Label/Integration/Label_module_tester1 label_module_test1
-Alex
On 7/18/13 11:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Please place any questions, queries or issues you come across while
>testing Apache Flex 4.10 RC2 in this thread.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin