You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> on 2013/07/27 00:03:57 UTC
Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Hi,
At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
This gives a bad first impression on new users.
3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
implementations. The population of LCDS customers is also small, but many
of them are the big enterprises and we don't want to give them a reason
not to move to Apache Flex.
For #1: I have a fix ready to go. It passed all mustella tests.
For #3: I think we should just revert the change to IList. No need to
force IList implementations to implement this method. I cannot figure out
how the customer that brought up this issue got around it. I suppose we
could ship our own version of DataItem, but I'd rather not and I think
that requires going through a donation process.
For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there is
a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
to respond in the timeframe we want. What would be the negative impact of
just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml? We could also
rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
I think we need to resolve all three issues before we really push out
these bits.
Thoughts?
-Alex
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/26/13 5:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> +1 to reverting the change. There could be thirdparty components for
>>which
>> the source code may not be readily accessible. This could be a big
>> problem.
>Not really there's is a work around ie revert the change in the SDK and
>recompile. As everyone has access to the source code they patch and
>recompile if needed for backwards compatibility. I think you have to be
>doing something a little odd for this to be an issue ie overriding an
>mx_internal method?
There may be confusion here. The recommendation is to revert the addition
of removeItem to the Ilist interface. The conversion of mx_internal
setSelectedIndex to public is a separate issue, and not a factor for this
release because we have always warned folks that overriding mx_internal
stuff was not guaranteed in future releases.
-Alex
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> +1 to reverting the change. There could be thirdparty components for which
> the source code may not be readily accessible. This could be a big
> problem.
Not really there's is a work around ie revert the change in the SDK and recompile. As everyone has access to the source code they patch and recompile if needed for backwards compatibility. I think you have to be doing something a little odd for this to be an issue ie overriding an mx_internal method?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
>
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
> implementations. The population of LCDS customers is also small, but many
> of them are the big enterprises and we don't want to give them a reason
> not to move to Apache Flex.
>
> For #1: I have a fix ready to go. It passed all mustella tests.
> For #3: I think we should just revert the change to IList. No need to
> force IList implementations to implement this method. I cannot figure out
> how the customer that brought up this issue got around it. I suppose we
> could ship our own version of DataItem, but I'd rather not and I think
> that requires going through a donation process.
>
+1 to reverting the change. There could be thirdparty components for which
the source code may not be readily accessible. This could be a big
problem.
>
> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
> are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there is
> a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
> to respond in the timeframe we want. What would be the negative impact of
> just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml? We could also
> rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
>
The other option would be to ship as 4.10.0 and add a note about it in our
RELEASE_NOTES. The workaround is simple enough. Another reason is I am
very curious to see how Adobe reacts to this. I imagine that this would be
a simple enough patch for them to release as well.
If Adobe does not react quickly enough after the release, we can release a
4.10.1 patch that can just lie about the version in the
flex-sdk-description.xml. What are the repurcussions to this?
Thanks,
Om
>
> I think we need to resolve all three issues before we really push out
> these bits.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
>The parsing reg exp pasted in another thread doesn't look to be the issue.
> >
> > It contains \\d+ which match for more than one digit. and would parse
> >4.10.0 with that expression as "4.10.0", ".10.0" and ".0".
> OK, I'll keep looking then. I haven't tried it myself. Are folks who are
> hitting this using FB 4.7 or FB 4.6?
>
I just tested it. This happens with FB 4.6 and FB 4.7.
Thanks,
Om
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Avi Kessner <ak...@gmail.com>.
I thought I was alone in finding 4.10 confusing. I think it might be a
good idea to call this 4.9.5 or 5.0
On 27 Jul 2013 07:20, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> >> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> >> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
> >But your fix fixes this right?
> Yes
> >
> >> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
> >> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
> >Possible the more serious issue from a perception view anyway. Although
> >it the code could be easily fixed in FB (just the number parsing right?)
> >it may be difficult for Adobe to do so and release in a timely manner.
> >
> >Changing the version to 4.9.5 or similar just seems a bit silly. If we
> >change flex-description but leave the version number at 4.10 we may run
> >into other issues with version compatibility checks in the sdk. While I
> >don;t think any for 4.9 or 4.10 have been added there are potential
> >issues if we do that.
> >
> >> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
> >> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
> >> implementations.
> >Do you read the bottom of
> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a workaround.
> >"I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and added
> >the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
> >Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
> Yeah, and so I asked for more information because that just doesn't make
> sense to me, plus even if it does work, we need to find out why so we can
> instruct folks who don't have FB. And then there's all of the other pain
> folks have already warned us with their custom Ilists. I think the better
> move is to revert.
> >
> >> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in
> >>flex-sdk-description.xml
> >> are single digits
> >
> >The parsing reg exp pasted in another thread doesn't look to be the issue.
> >
> > It contains \\d+ which match for more than one digit. and would parse
> >4.10.0 with that expression as "4.10.0", ".10.0" and ".0".
> OK, I'll keep looking then. I haven't tried it myself. Are folks who are
> hitting this using FB 4.7 or FB 4.6?
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
OK, found time to look. The working SWF is not using mx.data.DataList
which is why it won't throw the verify error. Somehow, when you are
regenerating the data classes, the data wizard decided that it didn't need
DataList and other LCDS classes.
If that works for you, great, but for those who must use the LCDS classes,
whatever worked for you probably isn't going to work for them. I think
we'll have to revert the IList change.
-Alex
On 7/27/13 12:09 PM, "Flex Hdsign" <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>Yes I will, if I can help anymore just let me
>
>Regards,
>
>Swen van zanten
>Compuniek Bedrijfsautomatisering
>
>Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
>Op 27 jul. 2013 om 19:22 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het volgende
>geschreven:
>
>> OK, thanks. Can you keep those links up for a couple of days?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 7/27/13 2:06 AM, "Swen van Zanten" <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using
>>>>>> mx.data.DataItem
>>>>>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade
>>>>>>their
>>>>>> implementations.
>>>>> Do you read the bottom of
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a
>>>>> workaround.
>>>>> "I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and
>>>>> added
>>>>> the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
>>>>> Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
>>>> Yeah, and so I asked for more information because that just doesn't
>>>>make
>>>> sense to me, plus even if it does work, we need to find out why so we
>>>> can
>>>> instruct folks who don't have FB. And then there's all of the other
>>>> pain
>>>> folks have already warned us with their custom Ilists. I think the
>>>> better
>>>> move is to revert.
>>>
>>> Here is hopefully your answer.. otherwise I don't know what to do.
>>> [1] contains the project with the error
>>> [2] contains the project with a workaround
>>> [3] screenshots on how I did it
>>>
>>> srcview is available.
>>>
>>> [1] http://compuniek.nl/flex/notWorking/
>>> [2] http://compuniek.nl/flex/Working/
>>> [3] http://compuniek.nl/flex/fix/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>>> Hoofdstraat 160
>>> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Flex Hdsign <fl...@hdsign.nl>.
Yes I will, if I can help anymore just let me
Regards,
Swen van zanten
Compuniek Bedrijfsautomatisering
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 27 jul. 2013 om 19:22 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het volgende geschreven:
> OK, thanks. Can you keep those links up for a couple of days?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 7/27/13 2:06 AM, "Swen van Zanten" <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>
>> Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using
>>>>> mx.data.DataItem
>>>>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>>>>> implementations.
>>>> Do you read the bottom of
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a
>>>> workaround.
>>>> "I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and
>>>> added
>>>> the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
>>>> Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
>>> Yeah, and so I asked for more information because that just doesn't make
>>> sense to me, plus even if it does work, we need to find out why so we
>>> can
>>> instruct folks who don't have FB. And then there's all of the other
>>> pain
>>> folks have already warned us with their custom Ilists. I think the
>>> better
>>> move is to revert.
>>
>> Here is hopefully your answer.. otherwise I don't know what to do.
>> [1] contains the project with the error
>> [2] contains the project with a workaround
>> [3] screenshots on how I did it
>>
>> srcview is available.
>>
>> [1] http://compuniek.nl/flex/notWorking/
>> [2] http://compuniek.nl/flex/Working/
>> [3] http://compuniek.nl/flex/fix/
>>
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>> Hoofdstraat 160
>> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
OK, thanks. Can you keep those links up for a couple of days?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 7/27/13 2:06 AM, "Swen van Zanten" <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using
>>>>mx.data.DataItem
>>>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>>>> implementations.
>>> Do you read the bottom of
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a
>>>workaround.
>>> "I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and
>>>added
>>> the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
>>> Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
>> Yeah, and so I asked for more information because that just doesn't make
>> sense to me, plus even if it does work, we need to find out why so we
>>can
>> instruct folks who don't have FB. And then there's all of the other
>>pain
>> folks have already warned us with their custom Ilists. I think the
>>better
>> move is to revert.
>
>Here is hopefully your answer.. otherwise I don't know what to do.
>[1] contains the project with the error
>[2] contains the project with a workaround
>[3] screenshots on how I did it
>
>srcview is available.
>
>[1] http://compuniek.nl/flex/notWorking/
>[2] http://compuniek.nl/flex/Working/
>[3] http://compuniek.nl/flex/fix/
>
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>
>Regards,
>
>SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>Hoofdstraat 160
>2171 BL, Sassenheim
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>.
Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
>>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>>> implementations.
>> Do you read the bottom of
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a workaround.
>> "I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and added
>> the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
>> Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
> Yeah, and so I asked for more information because that just doesn't make
> sense to me, plus even if it does work, we need to find out why so we can
> instruct folks who don't have FB. And then there's all of the other pain
> folks have already warned us with their custom Ilists. I think the better
> move is to revert.
Here is hopefully your answer.. otherwise I don't know what to do.
[1] contains the project with the error
[2] contains the project with a workaround
[3] screenshots on how I did it
srcview is available.
[1] http://compuniek.nl/flex/notWorking/
[2] http://compuniek.nl/flex/Working/
[3] http://compuniek.nl/flex/fix/
>
> -Alex
>
Regards,
SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstraat 160
2171 BL, Sassenheim
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
>> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
>> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
>But your fix fixes this right?
Yes
>
>> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
>> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
>Possible the more serious issue from a perception view anyway. Although
>it the code could be easily fixed in FB (just the number parsing right?)
>it may be difficult for Adobe to do so and release in a timely manner.
>
>Changing the version to 4.9.5 or similar just seems a bit silly. If we
>change flex-description but leave the version number at 4.10 we may run
>into other issues with version compatibility checks in the sdk. While I
>don;t think any for 4.9 or 4.10 have been added there are potential
>issues if we do that.
>
>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>> implementations.
>Do you read the bottom of
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a workaround.
>"I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and added
>the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
>Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
Yeah, and so I asked for more information because that just doesn't make
sense to me, plus even if it does work, we need to find out why so we can
instruct folks who don't have FB. And then there's all of the other pain
folks have already warned us with their custom Ilists. I think the better
move is to revert.
>
>> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in
>>flex-sdk-description.xml
>> are single digits
>
>The parsing reg exp pasted in another thread doesn't look to be the issue.
>
> It contains \\d+ which match for more than one digit. and would parse
>4.10.0 with that expression as "4.10.0", ".10.0" and ".0".
OK, I'll keep looking then. I haven't tried it myself. Are folks who are
hitting this using FB 4.7 or FB 4.6?
-Alex
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
But your fix fixes this right?
> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
Possible the more serious issue from a perception view anyway. Although it the code could be easily fixed in FB (just the number parsing right?) it may be difficult for Adobe to do so and release in a timely manner.
Changing the version to 4.9.5 or similar just seems a bit silly. If we change flex-description but leave the version number at 4.10 we may run into other issues with version compatibility checks in the sdk. While I don;t think any for 4.9 or 4.10 have been added there are potential issues if we do that.
> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
> implementations.
Do you read the bottom of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a workaround.
"I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and added the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
> are single digits
The parsing reg exp pasted in another thread doesn't look to be the issue.
It contains \\d+ which match for more than one digit. and would parse 4.10.0 with that expression as "4.10.0", ".10.0" and ".0".
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Hi, that issue is issue #3 in my list. Can you provide more information
about how you fixed it? I would think you would have to swap out 4.10.0
swcs for 4.9.x swcs.
On 7/26/13 3:19 PM, "Swen van Zanten" <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I had this [1] today on a new project alsoŠ I guess this is a bug too..
>Or a fb bug.. With 4.9.1 I haven't had this problem.
>The same way i fixed this with a new project as I did with a old project.
>
>[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631
>
>Regards,
>
>SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>Hoofdstraat 160
>2171 BL, Sassenheim
>
>Op 27 jul. 2013, om 00:03 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>volgende geschreven:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
>>
>> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
>> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
>> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
>> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
>> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>> implementations. The population of LCDS customers is also small, but
>>many
>> of them are the big enterprises and we don't want to give them a reason
>> not to move to Apache Flex.
>>
>> For #1: I have a fix ready to go. It passed all mustella tests.
>> For #3: I think we should just revert the change to IList. No need to
>> force IList implementations to implement this method. I cannot figure
>>out
>> how the customer that brought up this issue got around it. I suppose we
>> could ship our own version of DataItem, but I'd rather not and I think
>> that requires going through a donation process.
>>
>> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in
>>flex-sdk-description.xml
>> are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there
>>is
>> a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get
>>Adobe
>> to respond in the timeframe we want. What would be the negative impact
>>of
>> just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml? We could also
>> rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
>>
>> I think we need to resolve all three issues before we really push out
>> these bits.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>.
Hi All,
I had this [1] today on a new project also… I guess this is a bug too.. Or a fb bug.. With 4.9.1 I haven't had this problem.
The same way i fixed this with a new project as I did with a old project.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631
Regards,
SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstraat 160
2171 BL, Sassenheim
Op 27 jul. 2013, om 00:03 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het volgende geschreven:
> Hi,
>
> At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
>
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
> implementations. The population of LCDS customers is also small, but many
> of them are the big enterprises and we don't want to give them a reason
> not to move to Apache Flex.
>
> For #1: I have a fix ready to go. It passed all mustella tests.
> For #3: I think we should just revert the change to IList. No need to
> force IList implementations to implement this method. I cannot figure out
> how the customer that brought up this issue got around it. I suppose we
> could ship our own version of DataItem, but I'd rather not and I think
> that requires going through a donation process.
>
> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
> are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there is
> a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
> to respond in the timeframe we want. What would be the negative impact of
> just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml? We could also
> rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
>
> I think we need to resolve all three issues before we really push out
> these bits.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Alex
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com>.
Paul,
I changed version to 4.6.0 in the ..\sdks\4.9.1\flex-sdk-description.xml
file and design view works just fine. But I don't bank on it all the
time. Eventually, like Nick, i'll have to re-train my brain and stop using
Design view. Really a bummer they stopped working on that, it's great for
quickly laying things out and tweeking positions of UI elements without
itterating builds just to see how a 1 pixel adjustment looks.
Chris
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Design View is no longer supported for anything that we (Apache) produce.
> Flash Builder 4.6 and below tied the specific SDK version with a special
> module within the IDE that was used to render the DV. We don't have the
> ability to patch FB4.6 (esp. since FB 4.7 replaced it, and no longer
> support DV).
>
> Unfortunately, this is one thing that we have no control over. Adobe was
> very clear that DV was end-of-life as of 4.6. According to them, they felt
> nobody used it, so it wasn't worth supporting anymore. (I personally used
> it all the type to lay out my apps before I did any coding, but have since
> retrained my brain to do it via code).
>
> I know some of the other IDEs have taken a stab at doing something like DV
> -- I don't think any of them got very far (IntelliJ has something that
> renders the display in near-realtime, but it is not a click-and-drag type
> of interface like you may be used to).
>
> -Nick
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Paul Hastings <paul.hastings@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On 7/30/2013 10:17 PM, Chris Martin wrote:
> >
> >> I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file
> >> to
> >> say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will
> >> forceably
> >> say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
> >> trying to get an eye out for an IDE that supports a design view so I can
> >> move off of Flash Builder 4.6
> >>
> >
> > what exactly did you modify? when i simply changed "version" to "4.6.0"
> in
> > that file, the design view button does become enabled but FB only shows a
> > black or light gray screen when you try to use it. if i want a
> functioning
> > design view i have to swap to sdk 4.6.0 (but do that a few times &
> eclipse
> > becomes violently drunk & has to be shut down).
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
Paul,
Design View is no longer supported for anything that we (Apache) produce.
Flash Builder 4.6 and below tied the specific SDK version with a special
module within the IDE that was used to render the DV. We don't have the
ability to patch FB4.6 (esp. since FB 4.7 replaced it, and no longer
support DV).
Unfortunately, this is one thing that we have no control over. Adobe was
very clear that DV was end-of-life as of 4.6. According to them, they felt
nobody used it, so it wasn't worth supporting anymore. (I personally used
it all the type to lay out my apps before I did any coding, but have since
retrained my brain to do it via code).
I know some of the other IDEs have taken a stab at doing something like DV
-- I don't think any of them got very far (IntelliJ has something that
renders the display in near-realtime, but it is not a click-and-drag type
of interface like you may be used to).
-Nick
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Paul Hastings <pa...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 10:17 PM, Chris Martin wrote:
>
>> I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file
>> to
>> say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will
>> forceably
>> say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
>> trying to get an eye out for an IDE that supports a design view so I can
>> move off of Flash Builder 4.6
>>
>
> what exactly did you modify? when i simply changed "version" to "4.6.0" in
> that file, the design view button does become enabled but FB only shows a
> black or light gray screen when you try to use it. if i want a functioning
> design view i have to swap to sdk 4.6.0 (but do that a few times & eclipse
> becomes violently drunk & has to be shut down).
>
>
>
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Paul Hastings <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/2013 12:58 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
> "eclipse becomes violently drunk"
>
> Yes, that is an actual technical term :-)
yeah when eclipse starts belting out this tune, its time to shut it down ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUeKDtMV1gA
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
"eclipse becomes violently drunk"
Yes, that is an actual technical term :-)
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Paul Hastings <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/2013 10:17 PM, Chris Martin wrote:
> I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file to
> say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will forceably
> say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
> trying to get an eye out for an IDE that supports a design view so I can
> move off of Flash Builder 4.6
what exactly did you modify? when i simply changed "version" to "4.6.0" in that
file, the design view button does become enabled but FB only shows a black or
light gray screen when you try to use it. if i want a functioning design view i
have to swap to sdk 4.6.0 (but do that a few times & eclipse becomes violently
drunk & has to be shut down).
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com>.
I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file to
say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will forceably
say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
trying to get an eye out for an IDE that supports a design view so I can
move off of Flash Builder 4.6
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> No harm done, I'm sure. And I want re-iterate that I strongly agree
> that we shouldn't 'fake' version numbers to work around this issue. A
> simple fix is available (changing to single digit version numbering)
> and I'm sure we would never fix one IDE by knowingly breaking another.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Alexander Doroshko
> <al...@jetbrains.com> wrote:
> > On 29.07.2013 12:43, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander,
> >>
> >> I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
> >> to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
> >> producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
> >> best the solution that cripples Flash Builder.
> >>
> >> EdB
> >
> > I'm sorry. I said that any other solution is ok for our IDE. Just ignore
> my
> > personal opinion.
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
No harm done, I'm sure. And I want re-iterate that I strongly agree
that we shouldn't 'fake' version numbers to work around this issue. A
simple fix is available (changing to single digit version numbering)
and I'm sure we would never fix one IDE by knowingly breaking another.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Alexander Doroshko
<al...@jetbrains.com> wrote:
> On 29.07.2013 12:43, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>>
>> Alexander,
>>
>> I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
>> to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
>> producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
>> best the solution that cripples Flash Builder.
>>
>> EdB
>
> I'm sorry. I said that any other solution is ok for our IDE. Just ignore my
> personal opinion.
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>.
On 29.07.2013 12:43, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
> to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
> producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
> best the solution that cripples Flash Builder.
>
> EdB
I'm sorry. I said that any other solution is ok for our IDE. Just ignore
my personal opinion.
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by aYo ~ <ay...@binitie.com>.
I concur as I use fb and fdt
aYo
www.ayobinitie.com
mrbinitie.blogspot.com
On 29 Jul 2013 09:44, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
> to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
> producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
> best the solution that cripples Flash Builder.
>
> EdB
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Alexander Doroshko
> <al...@jetbrains.com> wrote:
> > On 27.07.2013 2:03, Alex Harui wrote:
> >>
> >> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in
> flex-sdk-description.xml
> >> are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there
> is
> >> a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get
> Adobe
> >> to respond in the timeframe we want. What would be the negative impact
> of
> >> just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml? We could also
> >> rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
> >
> > Please, don't lie in flex-sdk-description.xml. There's a lot of code
> relying
> > on this number in IntelliJ IDEA. I guess lying may cause unexpected
> errors
> > not only in our IDE, but in all other IDEs as well, even in Flash Builder
> > itself. Any other solution is ok for IntelliJ IDEA.
> > My personal choice would be 4.10 and a note in release notes. My 2nd
> > preferred choice is 4.9.X.
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Alexander,
I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
best the solution that cripples Flash Builder.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Alexander Doroshko
<al...@jetbrains.com> wrote:
> On 27.07.2013 2:03, Alex Harui wrote:
>>
>> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
>> are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there is
>> a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
>> to respond in the timeframe we want. What would be the negative impact of
>> just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml? We could also
>> rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
>
> Please, don't lie in flex-sdk-description.xml. There's a lot of code relying
> on this number in IntelliJ IDEA. I guess lying may cause unexpected errors
> not only in our IDE, but in all other IDEs as well, even in Flash Builder
> itself. Any other solution is ok for IntelliJ IDEA.
> My personal choice would be 4.10 and a note in release notes. My 2nd
> preferred choice is 4.9.X.
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Posted by Alexander Doroshko <al...@jetbrains.com>.
On 27.07.2013 2:03, Alex Harui wrote:
> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
> are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there is
> a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
> to respond in the timeframe we want. What would be the negative impact of
> just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml? We could also
> rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
Please, don't lie in flex-sdk-description.xml. There's a lot of code
relying on this number in IntelliJ IDEA. I guess lying may cause
unexpected errors not only in our IDE, but in all other IDEs as well,
even in Flash Builder itself. Any other solution is ok for IntelliJ IDEA.
My personal choice would be 4.10 and a note in release notes. My 2nd
preferred choice is 4.9.X.