[DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Please place discussion here and not in the vote thread.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Never mind: it doesn't ;-)

Thanks,

EdB



On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> By the way: does the 'package' target also run 'compile'? Don't want run
> everything twice for each run ...
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> Looks like the build machine doesn't have that problem, however, the
>> build seems to be progressing nicely on there.
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FLEX_HOME points to the 'develop' branch of 'flex-sdk'.
>>>
>>> I did no local properties or anything, just ran 'ant clean compile
>>> package' on 'TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3' as per the README.
>>>
>>> EdB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> > While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant
>>>> clean
>>>> > compile package) keeps failing with this message:
>>>> >
>>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>>> >
>>>> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
>>>> > Error: Definition org.osmf.utils:OSMFSettings could not be found.
>>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>>> >    [mxmlc] import org.osmf.utils.OSMFSettings;
>>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>>> >
>>>> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(34):
>>>> > Error: Access of undefined property OSMFSettings.
>>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>>> >    [mxmlc] OSMFSettings.enableStageVideo = false;
>>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It means the Flex SDK has the wrong OSMF version, ie it contains the
>>>> older 1.x version not the newer 2.x version.
>>>>
>>>> Which version of the  SDK are you using to compile?
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

By the way: does the 'package' target also run 'compile'? Don't want run
everything twice for each run ...

EdB



On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> Looks like the build machine doesn't have that problem, however, the build
> seems to be progressing nicely on there.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> FLEX_HOME points to the 'develop' branch of 'flex-sdk'.
>>
>> I did no local properties or anything, just ran 'ant clean compile
>> package' on 'TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3' as per the README.
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> > While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant clean
>>> > compile package) keeps failing with this message:
>>> >
>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>> >
>>> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
>>> > Error: Definition org.osmf.utils:OSMFSettings could not be found.
>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>> >    [mxmlc] import org.osmf.utils.OSMFSettings;
>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>> >
>>> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(34):
>>> > Error: Access of undefined property OSMFSettings.
>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>> >    [mxmlc] OSMFSettings.enableStageVideo = false;
>>> >    [mxmlc]
>>>
>>>
>>> It means the Flex SDK has the wrong OSMF version, ie it contains the
>>> older 1.x version not the newer 2.x version.
>>>
>>> Which version of the  SDK are you using to compile?
>>>
>>> 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
>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

Looks like the build machine doesn't have that problem, however, the build
seems to be progressing nicely on there.

EdB



On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> FLEX_HOME points to the 'develop' branch of 'flex-sdk'.
>
> I did no local properties or anything, just ran 'ant clean compile
> package' on 'TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3' as per the README.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant clean
>> > compile package) keeps failing with this message:
>> >
>> >    [mxmlc]
>> >
>> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
>> > Error: Definition org.osmf.utils:OSMFSettings could not be found.
>> >    [mxmlc]
>> >    [mxmlc] import org.osmf.utils.OSMFSettings;
>> >    [mxmlc]
>> >    [mxmlc]
>> >
>> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(34):
>> > Error: Access of undefined property OSMFSettings.
>> >    [mxmlc]
>> >    [mxmlc] OSMFSettings.enableStageVideo = false;
>> >    [mxmlc]
>>
>>
>> It means the Flex SDK has the wrong OSMF version, ie it contains the
>> older 1.x version not the newer 2.x version.
>>
>> Which version of the  SDK are you using to compile?
>>
>> 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] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

FLEX_HOME points to the 'develop' branch of 'flex-sdk'.

I did no local properties or anything, just ran 'ant clean compile package'
on 'TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3' as per the README.

EdB



On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant clean
> > compile package) keeps failing with this message:
> >
> >    [mxmlc]
> >
> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
> > Error: Definition org.osmf.utils:OSMFSettings could not be found.
> >    [mxmlc]
> >    [mxmlc] import org.osmf.utils.OSMFSettings;
> >    [mxmlc]
> >    [mxmlc]
> >
> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(34):
> > Error: Access of undefined property OSMFSettings.
> >    [mxmlc]
> >    [mxmlc] OSMFSettings.enableStageVideo = false;
> >    [mxmlc]
>
>
> It means the Flex SDK has the wrong OSMF version, ie it contains the older
> 1.x version not the newer 2.x version.
>
> Which version of the  SDK are you using to compile?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin




-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant clean
> compile package) keeps failing with this message:
> 
>    [mxmlc]
> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
> Error: Definition org.osmf.utils:OSMFSettings could not be found.
>    [mxmlc]
>    [mxmlc] import org.osmf.utils.OSMFSettings;
>    [mxmlc]
>    [mxmlc]
> /Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(34):
> Error: Access of undefined property OSMFSettings.
>    [mxmlc]
>    [mxmlc] OSMFSettings.enableStageVideo = false;
>    [mxmlc]


It means the Flex SDK has the wrong OSMF version, ie it contains the older 1.x version not the newer 2.x version.

Which version of the  SDK are you using to compile?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

While trying out the settings for the CI job, my local build (ant clean
compile package) keeps failing with this message:

    [mxmlc]
/Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(31):
 Error: Definition org.osmf.utils:OSMFSettings could not be found.
    [mxmlc]
    [mxmlc] import org.osmf.utils.OSMFSettings;
    [mxmlc]
    [mxmlc]
/Users/erik/Documents/ApacheFlex/git/flex-utilities/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/spark/controls/VideoDisplayExample.mxml(34):
 Error: Access of undefined property OSMFSettings.
    [mxmlc]
    [mxmlc] OSMFSettings.enableStageVideo = false;
    [mxmlc]

What am I - or is TDF - doing wrong?

EdB



On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I asked for feedback over a period of a week and only feedback was to
> change a title. Without a release candidate is seens to me that people are
> unwilling to check things.
>
> You have to call a vote at some point and that still requires a release
> candidate.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

I asked for feedback over a period of a week and only feedback was to
change a title. Without a release candidate is seens to me that people are
unwilling to check things.

You have to call a vote at some point and that still requires a release
candidate.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

>  Any URL I type is not a link at the point I hit send, it is just plain text.  

And most email clients treat anything starting with "http://" as a link, which breaks as some of your links are broken over two lines.

Simple fix is to not break the text over multiple lines.

> I may have to use a shortener in the future.

As external one may not exist forever probably best to use the Apaceh one [1]

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://s.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/6/14, 1:04 AM, "Harbs" <ha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Did you try this?
>http://blog.techhit.com/551102-how-to-prevent-outlook-2010-and-2013-from-a
>dding-line-breaks-to-sent-plain-text-messages

Seems to be for Windows.  I’m on Mac and already have that option set.  I
spent 20 minutes searching the internet.  It appears to be a limitation on
Mac Outlook 2011. I’m going to add the Apache URL shortener to my browser
favorites.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>]

Did you try this?
http://blog.techhit.com/551102-how-to-prevent-outlook-2010-and-2013-from-adding-line-breaks-to-sent-plain-text-messages

On Nov 6, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

>> PS Any chance you can format your email so that the URL don't break over
>> lines and thus result in 404s?
> 
> I’ll look into it tomorrow.  I’m up past my normal cutoff.  Any URL I type
> is not a link at the point I hit send, it is just plain text.  Some other
> thing turns it into a link.  I may have to use a shortener in the future.

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/6/14, 12:08 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> The Marshall Plan [3] was the nickname for multi-version support in Flex
>> [4][5] that also solved communicating between sandboxed applications.
>
>Tour De Flex has no need for communication between it and any 3rd party
>app it loads so that's not a requirement here.

Well, I think we need to communicate enough to size the example correctly.

>
>From looking at the SWFLoader code, I think (but not 100% sure) it
>defaults to using the Marshall Plan (scattered though out SWFLoader), and
>that is a factor when working out the content size (getContentSize use of
>a SWFBridge to calculate size).

Marshall Plan is a mixin.  The hooks are in the code, but are not
activated unless you add the mixin.

>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>PS Any chance you can format your email so that the URL don't break over
>lines and thus result in 404s?

I’ll look into it tomorrow.  I’m up past my normal cutoff.  Any URL I type
is not a link at the point I hit send, it is just plain text.  Some other
thing turns it into a link.  I may have to use a shortener in the future.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> The Marshall Plan [3] was the nickname for multi-version support in Flex
> [4][5] that also solved communicating between sandboxed applications.

Tour De Flex has no need for communication between it and any 3rd party app it loads so that's not a requirement here.

From looking at the SWFLoader code, I think (but not 100% sure) it defaults to using the Marshall Plan (scattered though out SWFLoader), and that is a factor when working out the content size (getContentSize use of a SWFBridge to calculate size).

Thanks,
Justin

PS Any chance you can format your email so that the URL don't break over lines and thus result in 404s?

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/5/14, 11:22 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> First step is to contact the third-parties and find out how they want to
>> get loaded (import or sandboxed with Marshall Plan).
>
>It would be useful if you included links to these techniques (to save
>people time) as not everyone may know what is required here.

OK, wasn’t sure folks wanted a tutorial on third-party content.  Didn’t
think a lot of folks needed to know, but here goes:

“import loading” is defined here [1].  Yes it is in the loadBytes() method
but applies to regular loads as well.  I’m told it is equivalent to wget
[2].  The content is effectively copied from the third-party server to the
TDF server.  This can break the third-party content if it relies on having
the third-party domain name in the url or in HTTP headers.

The Marshall Plan [3] was the nickname for multi-version support in Flex
[4][5] that also solved communicating between sandboxed applications.
Data is marshaled across the sandbox boundary.  Both the loading app and
the loaded app need additional code to communicate.  Because nearly
everything is sandboxed, there is less room for security issues, and
third-party content doesn’t have the issues it does when import loaded.

HTH,
-Alex

[1] 
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/flash/di
splay/Loader.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wget
[3] 
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui/2008/08/marshall_plan_at_360flex_confe.html
[4] 
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/flex/using/WS2db454920e96a9e51e63e3d11c0bf69084
-7f0c.html
[5] 
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/flex/using/WS2db454920e96a9e51e63e3d11c0bf619ab
-7fe2.html

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> First step is to contact the third-parties and find out how they want to
> get loaded (import or sandboxed with Marshall Plan).

It would be useful if you included links to these techniques (to save people time) as not everyone may know what is required here.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

>  If import loaded, they need to add us to their crossdomain.xml, probably both flex.a.o and
> apacheflexbuilds.cloudapp.net:8080.

There's already a wildcard cross domain file for Flexicious [1] (but it may be malformed), but looks like Ardisia doesn't have one. [2].

> And if import loaded, then SWFLoader should have trustContent=true, but
> probably only when loading third-party, just to be careful, and maybe have
> its own whitelist of domains baked into the SWF.

Which would mean we need to make a release every time we add a 3rd party example which is what we are trying to avoid in the first place.

If (and I can't imagine this happening) we find that a 3rd party is doing something naughty we can just remove them from the 3rd party xml file until they fix the issue.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.flexicious.com/crossdomain.xml
2. http://www.ardisialabs.com/crossdomain.xml

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/5/14, 9:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> I think this is a blocker as well.
>> 
>> +1 for trying to get this fixed before we ship this version.
>
>Patches/fixes are welcome as I have no idea how to fix it.

First step is to contact the third-parties and find out how they want to
get loaded (import or sandboxed with Marshall Plan).  If import loaded,
they need to add us to their crossdomain.xml, probably both flex.a.o and
apacheflexbuilds.cloudapp.net:8080.

And if import loaded, then SWFLoader should have trustContent=true, but
probably only when loading third-party, just to be careful, and maybe have
its own whitelist of domains baked into the SWF.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> I think this is a blocker as well.
> 
> +1 for trying to get this fixed before we ship this version.

Patches/fixes are welcome as I have no idea how to fix it.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 5, 2014 9:07 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
> >I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all there,
> >the display is just a bit off on a few examples and
> >that probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'd label
> >this 'minor', file a JIRA and move on with the release.
>
> The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
> After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to fit
> instead of resizing.  Third-party content may not size correctly unless
> “import loaded” which I don’t think is the default.  Does TDF try to do
> that?  A grep of the source didn’t turn up any use of
> SWFLoader.trustContent or SecurityDomain.  And, the third-party content
> needs a crossdomain.xml that permits it to be import-loaded.
>
> TDF and the Ardisia example could also use Marshall Plan techniques
> instead of giving permissions via crossdomain.xml.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong, but that’s been the case when I’ve seen
> symptoms like this in the past.  Since we’re emphasizing third-party
> content in this release, I’d be tempted to say this is a blocker and we
> should fix the TDF code that loads third-party content.  However, if
> nobody else thinks it is a blocker and can be fixed later, I’m willing to
> go along with the crowd.
>

I think this is a blocker as well.

+1 for trying to get this fixed before we ship this version.

> Meanwhile, I got the source package from the builds server and tweaked the
> approval script to allow it to work without PGP signatures and everything
> looks fine to me, so I’m good to go otherwise.  How many other PMC members
> have looked at the source package?  We need at least one more.

Will try to do it in the next 24 hours.

>
> And for everyone, especially the non-PMC members, time is running out to
> go explore
>
>
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-re
> lease/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html
>
> and let us know if you see any showstoppers before we finish this release.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

Hi, thanks for pointing that out.  Maybe we need to update the README to
mention the upstream dependency on Squiggly?

Does anybody know why we can build Squiggly apps with missing classes?
Usually the compiler/linker complains first.

-Alex

On 11/6/14, 1:04 AM, "Gowtham S" <Go...@ramco.com> wrote:

>Dear All,
>I'm seeing one more Error in Spell check example of tour the flex while
>clicking on check spelling on both mx and spark versions.
>In Internet explorer 11 with Flash Player 14.
>
>ERROR:
>----------
>VerifyError: Error #1014: Class
>com.adobe.linguistics.spelling::UserDictionary could not be found.
>
>at SpellingExample/enableGB()
>at SpellingExample/___SpellingExample_Button1_click()
>
>after this error I'm not able to access without refreshing.
>
>Thanks
>
>Regards,
>Gowtham S
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:36 AM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0
>
>
>
>On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>>I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all
>>there, the display is just a bit off on a few examples and that
>>probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'd label this
>>'minor', file a JIRA and move on with the release.
>
>The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
>After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to fit
>instead of resizing.  Third-party content may not size correctly unless
>“import loaded” which I don’t think is the default.  Does TDF try to do
>that?  A grep of the source didn’t turn up any use of
>SWFLoader.trustContent or SecurityDomain.  And, the third-party content
>needs a crossdomain.xml that permits it to be import-loaded.
>
>TDF and the Ardisia example could also use Marshall Plan techniques
>instead of giving permissions via crossdomain.xml.
>
>Of course, I could be wrong, but that’s been the case when I’ve seen
>symptoms like this in the past.  Since we’re emphasizing third-party
>content in this release, I’d be tempted to say this is a blocker and we
>should fix the TDF code that loads third-party content.  However, if
>nobody else thinks it is a blocker and can be fixed later, I’m willing to
>go along with the crowd.
>
>Meanwhile, I got the source package from the builds server and tweaked
>the approval script to allow it to work without PGP signatures and
>everything looks fine to me, so I’m good to go otherwise.  How many other
>PMC members have looked at the source package?  We need at least one more.
>
>And for everyone, especially the non-PMC members, time is running out to
>go explore
>
>http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-r
>e
>lease/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html
>
>and let us know if you see any showstoppers before we finish this release.
>
>Thanks,
>-Alex
>
>DISCLAIMER: Information contained in and transmitted by this e-mail is
>proprietary to Ramco Systems Limited and/or its parents, subsidiaries and
>other affiliates, including Ramco Systems Corporation, (collectively
>"Ramco Systems"), is a confidential communication between Ramco Systems
>and the intended recipient(s) and is intended for use only by the
>individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure
>under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this
>e-mail may not have been sent with the authority of Ramco Systems. Any
>unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or
>other use of this email, and/or any action taken in reliance on the
>contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Ramco
>Systems shall not be liable or responsible to an unintended recipient of
>this email in any way for the contents of this email, or for the
>consequences of any such use or action. If you have received this
>communication in error, either directly or through forwarding, please
>notify Ramco Systems immediately at mailadmin@ramco.com and
>delete/destroy this email and any copies of this email. In the absence of
>a consistent formal hard copy or electronic contract or waiver or other
>instrument duly executed on behalf of Ramco Systems by duly authorized
>officer(s) or agent(s), Ramco Systems shall not be contractually bound by
>any email sent on its behalf. Emails will be used by Ramco Systems only
>for making proposals, conducting negotiations, providing information and
>positions on issues and for similar purposes.

RE: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Gowtham S <Go...@ramco.com>]

Dear All,
I'm seeing one more Error in Spell check example of tour the flex while clicking on check spelling on both mx and spark versions.
In Internet explorer 11 with Flash Player 14.

ERROR:
----------
VerifyError: Error #1014: Class com.adobe.linguistics.spelling::UserDictionary could not be found.

at SpellingExample/enableGB()
at SpellingExample/___SpellingExample_Button1_click()

after this error I'm not able to access without refreshing.

Thanks

Regards,
Gowtham S


-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:36 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0



On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all
>there, the display is just a bit off on a few examples and that
>probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'd label this
>'minor', file a JIRA and move on with the release.

The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to fit instead of resizing.  Third-party content may not size correctly unless “import loaded” which I don’t think is the default.  Does TDF try to do that?  A grep of the source didn’t turn up any use of SWFLoader.trustContent or SecurityDomain.  And, the third-party content needs a crossdomain.xml that permits it to be import-loaded.

TDF and the Ardisia example could also use Marshall Plan techniques instead of giving permissions via crossdomain.xml.

Of course, I could be wrong, but that’s been the case when I’ve seen symptoms like this in the past.  Since we’re emphasizing third-party content in this release, I’d be tempted to say this is a blocker and we should fix the TDF code that loads third-party content.  However, if nobody else thinks it is a blocker and can be fixed later, I’m willing to go along with the crowd.

Meanwhile, I got the source package from the builds server and tweaked the approval script to allow it to work without PGP signatures and everything looks fine to me, so I’m good to go otherwise.  How many other PMC members have looked at the source package?  We need at least one more.

And for everyone, especially the non-PMC members, time is running out to go explore

http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-re
lease/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html

and let us know if you see any showstoppers before we finish this release.

Thanks,
-Alex

DISCLAIMER: Information contained in and transmitted by this e-mail is proprietary to Ramco Systems Limited and/or its parents, subsidiaries and other affiliates, including Ramco Systems Corporation, (collectively "Ramco Systems"), is a confidential communication between Ramco Systems and the intended recipient(s) and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If this is a forwarded message, the content of this e-mail may not have been sent with the authority of Ramco Systems. Any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or other use of this email, and/or any action taken in reliance on the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Ramco Systems shall not be liable or responsible to an unintended recipient of this email in any way for the contents of this email, or for the consequences of any such use or action. If you have received this communication in error, either directly or through forwarding, please notify Ramco Systems immediately at mailadmin@ramco.com and delete/destroy this email and any copies of this email. In the absence of a consistent formal hard copy or electronic contract or waiver or other instrument duly executed on behalf of Ramco Systems by duly authorized officer(s) or agent(s), Ramco Systems shall not be contractually bound by any email sent on its behalf. Emails will be used by Ramco Systems only for making proposals, conducting negotiations, providing information and positions on issues and for similar purposes.

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Or a third option: how about we just have a short description and a link
> to
> > the third party component?  We can add the embedded part in the next
> > release.
>
> Thats basically what we have now - the difference being it's hosted at the
> 3rd party site.
>
>
We are trying to load their swf.  I am saying just link to their website.
Maybe get a screenshot image (offline) and embed it into our app.


> One of the 3rd parties did provide their sample source code so another
> option would be to bake the 3rd party examples into our app and host them
> on the Tour De Flex site but may be some legal / been seen as promotion
> issues around that. You suggestion above may also has these same issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Or a third option: how about we just have a short description and a link to
> the third party component?  We can add the embedded part in the next
> release.

Thats basically what we have now - the difference being it's hosted at the 3rd party site.

One of the 3rd parties did provide their sample source code so another option would be to bake the 3rd party examples into our app and host them on the Tour De Flex site but may be some legal / been seen as promotion issues around that. You suggestion above may also has these same issues.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

Sorry, I will not be able to provide a patch.  I have limited bandwidth
this week.  I want to finish up the iOS7 skins first before working on
anything else.

+1 for dropping third party support in this release because of this issue.

Or a third option: how about we just have a short description and a link to
the third party component?  We can add the embedded part in the next
release.

Thanks,
Om

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So far we had a couple of PMC members who consider the 3rd Party issue to
> be blocking (but no indication they will provide a patch) and a couple who
> don't think it is blocking. Normally may be enough for a vote to pass but
> with the "no RC" process that's unclear.
>
> Looks like we have a choice:
> - Someone can provide a patch for this. Is anyone wiling to do so?
> - Drop 3rd party support from this release, and hopefully have it in a
> future release.
>
> Note that setting loadForCompatibility to true (even if just for the 3rd
> party content)  doesn't fix the sizing issue and further work would be
> required beyond that to get the size correct.
>
> While 3rd party support is certainly something I 'd like to see in this
> release (and so would the 3rd party contributors I assume), there are other
> important fixes as well and there is still value in releasing without it
> and saving it for a future release.
>
> Doping 3rd party support could be achieved by having an empty 3rd party
> XML so there may be be no real need for another release candidate / vote.
> The readme/release_notes say adding support for 3rd party examples that
> would be still be correct we would just not have any on the Tour De Flex
> web site.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>]

On 08/11/14 02:48, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
> I've checked in the changes into the apache-tour-de-flex-1.2 branch.  Can
> someone take a look at the changes?
Seems to work well looking at

http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html

The scaling appears a little jagged, so if you have a chance to play 
with the smoothing options that would be nice but by no means a barrier 
to releasing it.

Do you think there is a chance of doing the same for Flexicious, even if 
we have to host the standalone examples ourselves ?

Tom

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

>
> Currently we have PMC members who are effectively blocking the release or
> a vote on it but are unwilling to help out in fixing with they see as
> issues.


Please read the "Implications of Voting" section in [1]  I am quoting what
I think is the significant portion in that paragraph.

"a vote is a formal expression of opinion, *not* of commitment."


You still have not answered why we can't just link to their website instead
of attempting to embed their swf?  The embedded swfs do not provide any
significant functionalities.  They only have links to various pages on
their websites.  Why not just a add a link ourselves?

Thanks,
Om

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

HI,

Just a note if you are compiling from source using Java 1.8 speeds up compile time, from 30 minutes to under 20 minutes on my machine.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Anyone else have anything to add before I make another RC?

Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

On Nov 18, 2014 2:57 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just waiting for the images and see if we need another RC or not.
>

We agreed that there is no need for a new RC.  But it is up to you.

Thanks,
Om

> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Just waiting for the images and see if we need another RC or not.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

It points to the nightly build.  Here it is, but my email client is going
to insert line-breaks.

http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-re
lease/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html

On 11/21/14, 11:18 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
>
>That URL not working for me, but as I'm behind some firewall/proxy I
>can't work out the correct one. Someone mind posting it.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4

That URL not working for me, but as I'm behind some firewall/proxy I can't work out the correct one. Someone mind posting it.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

I pushed these changes.  You can check them out in a few hours at [1].
Yes, it can take up to two hours to complete the build.

-Alex

[1] http://s.apache.org/sC4


On 11/21/14, 2:21 PM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Allrighty then,
>
>flexicious.com/classic.jpg
>flexicious.com/ultimate.jpg
>flexicious.com/dashboard.jpg
>
>
>On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:59 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
><bi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Did not show up this time as well.  Best would be to upload the images
>>to
>> your server and give us the urls.  We will link to those image urls
>> directly from the TDF app.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Flexicious.com <fl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry about that - images attached.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This list doesn't take inline or attached binaries, I'm afraid.
>> >>
>> >> EdB
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Flexicious.com
>><fl...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it
>> look
>> >> > like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know
>>if
>> it
>> >> > looks too similar and I will have him get more creative with it :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > [image: Inline image 1]
>> >> >
>> >> > [image: Inline image 2]
>> >> >
>> >> > [image: Inline image 3]
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
>> >> bigosmallm@gmail.com
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >​​
>> >> >> > >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through
>> the
>> >> >> > >thread,
>> >> >> > >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400
>>image
>> for
>> >> >> our
>> >> >> > >products?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hi,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just
>>has to
>> >> be
>> >> >> > “high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.
>> The
>> >> >> one
>> >> >> > for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that
>>would
>> be
>> >> a
>> >> >> > good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the
>>xml
>> >> file
>> >> >> > and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we
>>check
>> >> it
>> >> >> in.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -Alex
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Yes, a 600x400 image like this one [1] would work.  A label
>>'Click to
>> >> >> Open'
>> >> >> shown prominently in the image would be nice as well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> Om
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [1] http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Ix Multimedia Software
>> >>
>> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
>> >>
>> >> T. 06-51952295
>> >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

["Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com>]

Allrighty then,

flexicious.com/classic.jpg
flexicious.com/ultimate.jpg
flexicious.com/dashboard.jpg


On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:59 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Did not show up this time as well.  Best would be to upload the images to
> your server and give us the urls.  We will link to those image urls
> directly from the TDF app.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Flexicious.com <fl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry about that - images attached.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >> This list doesn't take inline or attached binaries, I'm afraid.
> >>
> >> EdB
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Flexicious.com <fl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it
> look
> >> > like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know if
> it
> >> > looks too similar and I will have him get more creative with it :-)
> >> >
> >> > [image: Inline image 1]
> >> >
> >> > [image: Inline image 2]
> >> >
> >> > [image: Inline image 3]
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
> >> bigosmallm@gmail.com
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >​​
> >> >> > >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through
> the
> >> >> > >thread,
> >> >> > >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image
> for
> >> >> our
> >> >> > >products?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to
> >> be
> >> >> > “high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.
> The
> >> >> one
> >> >> > for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that would
> be
> >> a
> >> >> > good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the xml
> >> file
> >> >> > and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we check
> >> it
> >> >> in.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Alex
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Yes, a 600x400 image like this one [1] would work.  A label 'Click to
> >> >> Open'
> >> >> shown prominently in the image would be nice as well.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Om
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ix Multimedia Software
> >>
> >> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> >> 3521 VB Utrecht
> >>
> >> T. 06-51952295
> >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

Did not show up this time as well.  Best would be to upload the images to
your server and give us the urls.  We will link to those image urls
directly from the TDF app.

Thanks,
Om

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Flexicious.com <fl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sorry about that - images attached.
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>> This list doesn't take inline or attached binaries, I'm afraid.
>>
>> EdB
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Flexicious.com <fl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it look
>> > like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know if it
>> > looks too similar and I will have him get more creative with it :-)
>> >
>> > [image: Inline image 1]
>> >
>> > [image: Inline image 2]
>> >
>> > [image: Inline image 3]
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
>> bigosmallm@gmail.com
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >​​
>> >> > >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
>> >> > >thread,
>> >> > >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for
>> >> our
>> >> > >products?
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to
>> be
>> >> > “high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.  The
>> >> one
>> >> > for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that would be
>> a
>> >> > good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the xml
>> file
>> >> > and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we check
>> it
>> >> in.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Alex
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, a 600x400 image like this one [1] would work.  A label 'Click to
>> >> Open'
>> >> shown prominently in the image would be nice as well.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Om
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>> Jan Luykenstraat 27
>> 3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>> T. 06-51952295
>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

["Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com>]

Sorry about that - images attached.

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> This list doesn't take inline or attached binaries, I'm afraid.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Flexicious.com <fl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it look
> > like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know if it
> > looks too similar and I will have him get more creative with it :-)
> >
> > [image: Inline image 1]
> >
> > [image: Inline image 2]
> >
> > [image: Inline image 3]
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
> bigosmallm@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >​​
> >> > >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
> >> > >thread,
> >> > >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for
> >> our
> >> > >products?
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to be
> >> > “high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.  The
> >> one
> >> > for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that would be a
> >> > good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the xml
> file
> >> > and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we check it
> >> in.
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Yes, a 600x400 image like this one [1] would work.  A label 'Click to
> >> Open'
> >> shown prominently in the image would be nice as well.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Om
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

This list doesn't take inline or attached binaries, I'm afraid.

EdB



On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Flexicious.com <fl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it look
> like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know if it
> looks too similar and I will have him get more creative with it :-)
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> [image: Inline image 2]
>
> [image: Inline image 3]
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >​​
>> > >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
>> > >thread,
>> > >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for
>> our
>> > >products?
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to be
>> > “high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.  The
>> one
>> > for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that would be a
>> > good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the xml file
>> > and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we check it
>> in.
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> >
>> Yes, a 600x400 image like this one [1] would work.  A label 'Click to
>> Open'
>> shown prominently in the image would be nice as well.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> [1] http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>>
>
>


-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

["Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com>]

Thanks All, we have the images. I asked my graphics guy to make it look
like ardisia so it looks consistent. I hope thats ok, Let me know if it
looks too similar and I will have him get more creative with it :-)

[image: Inline image 1]

[image: Inline image 2]

[image: Inline image 3]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:16 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >​​
> > >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
> > >thread,
> > >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for our
> > >products?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to be
> > “high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.  The one
> > for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that would be a
> > good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the xml file
> > and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we check it
> in.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> Yes, a 600x400 image like this one [1] would work.  A label 'Click to Open'
> shown prominently in the image would be nice as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> [1] http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >​​
> >Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
> >thread,
> >am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for our
> >products?
>
> Hi,
>
> Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to be
> “high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.  The one
> for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that would be a
> good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the xml file
> and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we check it in.
>
> -Alex
>
>
Yes, a 600x400 image like this one [1] would work.  A label 'Click to Open'
shown prominently in the image would be nice as well.

Thanks,
Om

[1] http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/17/14, 3:02 AM, "Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>​​
>Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the
>thread,
>am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for our
>products?

Hi,

Om wrote the code so he’d know for sure, but I think it just has to be
“high-res”.  I think the window it is displayed in is resizable.  The one
for Ardisia doesn’t appear to be perfectly 600x400 but that would be a
good size.  If you supply a link to an image, we can update the xml file
and you can try it in a nightly build in a few hours after we check it in.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

["Flexicious.com" <fl...@gmail.com>]

​​
Sorry team for being late to the topic, but having read through the thread,
am I correct in assuming that we need to provide a 600X400 image for our
products?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > 1) get your thoughts on taking Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml so that
> > their app doesn’t show up scaled?  When they reply with a bitmap to use
> > like Ardisia did, then we’ll add it to the flex.a.o version which is what
> > most folks use anyway.
> >
>
> +1 for removing Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml.  We can always add it later
> when they provide us with the images instead of swfs.
>
>
> > 2) get at least one of you to check out the source package on the CI
> > server?  If you want you can use the approval script by getting the
> > ApproveTDF.xml in the develop branch, copying it to an empty folder and
> > then running:
> > ant -e -f ApproveTDF.xml -Drelease.version=1.2 -Dno.asc
> > Please make sure to review the README/RELEASE_NOTES/LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> > For me the build takes 30 to 40 minutes so plan accordingly.
> >
>
> Used source package (zip) from [1]
>  - Compiles fine
>  - MD5 checksum looks good
>  - CONTRIBUTING, LICENSE, NOTICE, README AND RELEASE_NOTES look good
>  - We may want to add Gowtham S to the CONTRIBUTORS file (He tested and
> reported the Squiggly issue upthread)
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
> [1]
>
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/out/
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

>
> 1) get your thoughts on taking Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml so that
> their app doesn’t show up scaled?  When they reply with a bitmap to use
> like Ardisia did, then we’ll add it to the flex.a.o version which is what
> most folks use anyway.
>

+1 for removing Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml.  We can always add it later
when they provide us with the images instead of swfs.


> 2) get at least one of you to check out the source package on the CI
> server?  If you want you can use the approval script by getting the
> ApproveTDF.xml in the develop branch, copying it to an empty folder and
> then running:
> ant -e -f ApproveTDF.xml -Drelease.version=1.2 -Dno.asc
> Please make sure to review the README/RELEASE_NOTES/LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> For me the build takes 30 to 40 minutes so plan accordingly.
>

Used source package (zip) from [1]
 - Compiles fine
 - MD5 checksum looks good
 - CONTRIBUTING, LICENSE, NOTICE, README AND RELEASE_NOTES look good
 - We may want to add Gowtham S to the CONTRIBUTORS file (He tested and
reported the Squiggly issue upthread)

Thanks,
Om


[1]
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/out/

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/10/14, 10:03 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> The loaded app appears to be somewhat resizable.  If you load the SWF
>> directly [3] without wrapper you can resize it and the text retains its
>> font size.  Try resizing the TDF window.  For me, the text in the
>> Flexicious app scales, indicating that it is loaded into a sandbox and
>> therefore not being communicated with like the other local example apps.
>
>Which is what we want as it is the most secure. Sorry not sure exactly
>what you are objecting to here. Would be better if fit 100% of the
>available height and width, but I certainly don't see that as a blocker.

It is moot as we’ve switched strategies, but we could have decided to use
Marshall Plan to have the 3rd party content display just like any other
local example app.  Depending on the size of your browser window, in the
original strategy, the 3rd party app could come up scaled such that the
text was almost unreadable.  IMO, that wasn’t a good enough first
impression for our third parties, and thus, at least Ardisia requested a
preference for the new strategy of just linking to 3rd party sites.

>
>> I’m not sure what your point is.
>
>Which is I still don't know how you (or other PMC members) would vote if
>I made a RC. It is still not clear that if I made a release and called a
>vote that it would get 3 +1's or not and in this new no RC process I
>gather you can't make a RC or vote until that is reasonable clear.
>Correct?

I would prefer that we remove Flexicious from 3rdparty.xml before cutting
a release, but otherwise, if you make an RC off the head of the release
branch, I expect to vote +1 unless someone shows up with a huge critical
problem we don’t currently know about (or the signature is bad or some
other data corruption).  The notice files look fine, the build script
works, the few examples I poked at worked.

Before you go do all that work, we should try to get agreement from others
on whether to temporarily take Flexicious out of the xml file, and get at
least one other PMC member to examine the source package on the CI server.
 If you’ve looked it over, and I’ve looked it over, and one other PMC
member has as well, that should be your 3 +1 votes.

So, fellow PMC members, can we:

1) get your thoughts on taking Flexicious out of 3rdparty.xml so that
their app doesn’t show up scaled?  When they reply with a bitmap to use
like Ardisia did, then we’ll add it to the flex.a.o version which is what
most folks use anyway.
2) get at least one of you to check out the source package on the CI
server?  If you want you can use the approval script by getting the
ApproveTDF.xml in the develop branch, copying it to an empty folder and
then running:
ant -e -f ApproveTDF.xml -Drelease.version=1.2 -Dno.asc
Please make sure to review the README/RELEASE_NOTES/LICENSE/NOTICE files.
For me the build takes 30 to 40 minutes so plan accordingly.

Thanks,
-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> The loaded app appears to be somewhat resizable.  If you load the SWF
> directly [3] without wrapper you can resize it and the text retains its
> font size.  Try resizing the TDF window.  For me, the text in the
> Flexicious app scales, indicating that it is loaded into a sandbox and
> therefore not being communicated with like the other local example apps.

Which is what we want as it is the most secure. Sorry not sure exactly what you are objecting to here. Would be better if fit 100% of the available height and width, but I certainly don't see that as a blocker.

> I’m not sure what your point is.

Which is I still don't know how you (or other PMC members) would vote if I made a RC. It is still not clear that if I made a release and called a vote that it would get 3 +1's or not and in this new no RC process I gather you can't make a RC or vote until that is reasonable clear. Correct?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/10/14, 2:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Please post a link to a screenshot of a properly sized and positioned
>> third party content
>
>Here you go:
>https://drive.google.com/a/classsoftware.com/file/d/0B3cTQYHN73CEaFpROE45d
>01rYmM/view

If you look carefully at the screenshot, the app does not size to fit the
upper portion of the divided box.  Other examples do: the title bar for
the Squiggly example goes along the entire width at the top of the upper
divided box.

The loaded app appears to be somewhat resizable.  If you load the SWF
directly [3] without wrapper you can resize it and the text retains its
font size.  Try resizing the TDF window.  For me, the text in the
Flexicious app scales, indicating that it is loaded into a sandbox and
therefore not being communicated with like the other local example apps.

This is sort of moot since we’ve moved away from loading third-party SWFs
directly into TDF to opening a new browser window/tab, but it makes it
less likely that the issue is not related to the sandboxing of 3rd party
content.


>
>> I ran the approval script.
>
>Which by itself isn't enough to approve a release see [1][2] etc

I’m not sure what your point is.  As I said in [4], the scripts attempt to
make sure you don’t miss any of the things in [1] and [2] other than
testing.  And I did perform tests on the built source, otherwise I
wouldn’t know that the Squiggly Examples are working correctly.

>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>2. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release

[3] http://www.flexicious.com/resources/demo/FlexiciousClassic.swf
[4] http://s.apache.org/Etf

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

>
> > I ran the approval script.
>
> Which by itself isn't enough to approve a release see [1][2] etc

If he had relied only on the approval script, we would not have had this
big thread discussing blocker issues.  Or the issues that you call 'bike
shedding' :-)

Thanks,
Om

>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Please post a link to a screenshot of a properly sized and positioned
> third party content

Here you go:
https://drive.google.com/a/classsoftware.com/file/d/0B3cTQYHN73CEaFpROE45d01rYmM/view

> I ran the approval script.

Which by itself isn't enough to approve a release see [1][2] etc

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/10/14, 1:41 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Looks like the issue was case-mismatch in the Ant script.  The Squiggly
>> examples now work on the CI server.
>
>Looks like the case change you suggested for one of the Squiggly RCs
>broke this. Very odd that it compiles but is unable to find the code at
>runtime that's probably a bug in the compiler  / ant task. It probably
>worked here as I had testing the examples on Squiggly RCs and still had
>the old named library hanging about. I don;t see the odd positioning
>locally - may be a timing issue due to loading the content from a web
>server vs from a web server locally?

Please post a link to a screenshot of a properly sized and positioned
third party content that includes the browser’s address bar with http://
in it, or add in some additional text output that displays the sandbox
type and url of the main SWF.  That will help verify you are running the
content under sandboxed conditions, or maybe there isn’t agreement that
what rest of us see is undesirable.


>
>> I am now satisfied with the source packages and its results in the
>>release
>> branch.
>
>What checks have you done on the source release?

I ran the approval script.  To run it against the nightly, get the version
in the develop branch, copy it into an empty folder, and run:

Ant -e -f ApproveTDF.xml -Dno.asc -Drelease.version=1.2

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Looks like the issue was case-mismatch in the Ant script.  The Squiggly
> examples now work on the CI server.

Looks like the case change you suggested for one of the Squiggly RCs broke this. Very odd that it compiles but is unable to find the code at runtime that's probably a bug in the compiler  / ant task. It probably worked here as I had testing the examples on Squiggly RCs and still had the old named library hanging about. I don;t see the odd positioning locally - may be a timing issue due to loading the content from a web server vs from a web server locally?

> I am now satisfied with the source packages and its results in the release
> branch.

What checks have you done on the source release? I'd rather not make a RC and call another VOTE until some PMC members have checked that as if even a minor issue is found with that I'd need to make another RC/call another vote.

>  I’d suggest that we get a few more folks over the next day or so
> to pound on it and more PMC members to examine the sources.

Given I'm off traveling and catching planes etc etc from tomorrow it may have to wait until after ApacheCon but see what I can squeeze in.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/7/14, 7:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> because that’s how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
>
>It may not. It may be a browser issue? It may be due to configuration of
>web server/CI windows box? For instance I'd guess that the build by the
>CI is not the same as the release candidate as it's using a different
>version of Apache Flex (ie the head of develop?)

Well, I suppose anything is possible.  Since you are the committer doing
the most work on TDF, have you set up your local testing to use http://
instead of file://?  That will enable you to do local testing in an
environment that better matches the security sandboxing when deployed to
flex.a.o and have solid evidence before having the entire community read
your doubts about my analysis.

>
>> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday [2]?
>
>Yes I brought that issue up myself several days ago and said it doesn't
>occur locally.
>
>> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server setup.
>
>As far as I can see the the ant script is using all of the correct
>libraries eg for spark as compiler.include-libraries includes all code
>the swf is they are used or not right? So that exception would be
>basically impossible.

Looks like the issue was case-mismatch in the Ant script.  The Squiggly
examples now work on the CI server.

I am now satisfied with the source packages and its results in the release
branch.  I’d suggest that we get a few more folks over the next day or so
to pound on it and more PMC members to examine the sources.  If Flexicious
doesn’t respond with bitmaps for their demo during that time, we will
remove them from 3rdparty.xml, cut the release and add them back into the
version on flex.a.o when they respond.

Thoughts?
-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the game.
> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
> third-party content look good.

I'd like to remind people that releases cannot be vetoed and votes on releases are by majority approval (ie 3+1 votes and more +1 than -1) and that releases can't be vetoed.This is to encourage small gradual improvements and frequent releases, looks like this new process effectively allows vetoing releases which would be a concern for the board.

> because that’s how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.

It may not. It may be a browser issue? It may be due to configuration of web server/CI windows box? For instance I'd guess that the build by the CI is not the same as the release candidate as it's using a different version of Apache Flex (ie the head of develop?)

> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday [2]?

Yes I brought that issue up myself several days ago and said it doesn't occur locally.

> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server setup.

As far as I can see the the ant script is using all of the correct libraries eg for spark as compiler.include-libraries includes all code the swf is they are used or not right? So that exception would be basically impossible.

My local version works and a flash builder project with the same code and swc's also works.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

Given we're now embedding an image from another site are there security concerns around that?

I think the disclaimer on the same page covers any legal issues. Anyone think otherwise?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/8/14, 12:16 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:


>I still think the Squiggly issue needs further investigation,

Somehow, the issue was related to case-sensitive capitalization of the
Squiggly SWCs.  Why that makes a difference on Windows, I’m not sure.  So
now the verify error is gone, but has been replaced by an error about
missing dictionaries.

I’m out of time again for tonight.  Maybe someone can pitch in and figure
out where the dictionaries should be and make it work.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/7/14, 7:14 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>
>> The new version is (should be) available here.  You will need to clear
>>your
>> browser cache first:
>> 
>>http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-
>>release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.htm
>>l
>
>We would still need to wait on images from Flexicious right?

I tried it, looks fine to me.  Thanks Om, for making these changes.  IMO,
the 3rdparty.xml we vote on and ship could only have Ardisia in it and we
could modify the file on our site when Flexicious is ready.

That said, I still think the Squiggly issue needs further investigation,
but I’m out of time for tonight.  I asked this upthread, but does anybody
know what is special about Squiggly that the compiler/linker doesn’t
complain when classes are missing and we get these verify errors at
runtime?  I noticed this when I was voting on Squiggly and trying to build
the test app.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> I've checked in the changes into the apache-tour-de-flex-1.2 branch.  Can
> someone take a look at the changes?

From a quick glance the changes look OK to me.

> The new version is (should be) available here.  You will need to clear your
> browser cache first:
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html

We would still need to wait on images from Flexicious right?

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

I've checked in the changes into the apache-tour-de-flex-1.2 branch.  Can
someone take a look at the changes?

I have kicked off a build here:
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/10/console

The new version is (should be) available here.  You will need to clear your
browser cache first:
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html

Feedback welcome.

Thanks,
Om

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:
>
> How's this?
>
> link:http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>
> Image is also attached.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Jake.  I linked to the image url you and tested the app.  It
looks too tiny.  It is a 400x400 image.  We probably need a 800x800 for it
to look nice and readable.  Also, a line of text in the image would
probably work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi OmPrakash,
>>>
>>> Sounds like the image is the only thing the end-user will see.  Should
I add the textual description directly to the image, or will there be a
Label with the description.
>>>
>>> If you can add the textual description via a Flex text component, then
here is the image you can use:
http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>>>
>>> If there is no textual description, please let me know and I'll fire up
my trusty Fireworks graphics editor and add some text to the image.  At the
minimum the image should have "Click To Open" on it.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> - Jake
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <
bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (CC-ing Flexicious and Jake@Ardisia)
>>>>
>>>> I have a fix ready to be checked in that uses an image and a click
event to take the user to a third party demo page.  From my FB debug
console, I don't see any securitydomain exceptions when I do this.
Whereas, with loading a swf, I get a securitydomain error.
>>>>
>>>> Jake, can you send me a link to a jpg image you want to use?  I will
use the link:http://www.ardisialabs.com/tour-de-flex
>>>>
>>>> Sal, do you want to do the same, please?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if this works.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Om
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
>>>>> about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks
for
>>>>> including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
>>>>> nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or so
>>>>> compile errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent
components
>>>>> like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
>>>>> However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the
problem
>>>>> and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the
layout
>>>>> issues are.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
>>>>> could just be a label and a link?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jake
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Hi,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".
Sorry
>>>>> > about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off
thanks for
>>>>> > including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
>>>>> > nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or
 so
>>>>> > compiling errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent
components
>>>>> > like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
>>>>> > However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the
problem
>>>>> > and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the
layout
>>>>> > issues are.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De
Flex
>>>>> > could just be a label and a link?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Say something like what I have now, except go ahead and drop the
imagehave
>>>>> > a single page with a list of third party components arranged in a
grid
>>>>> > format with a short description of each and a link to the demo.
This way,
>>>>> > it could be compiled into the app with minimal effort and
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>
wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the
process
>>>>> >> >doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead
in the
>>>>> >> >water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and
not have
>>>>> >> >releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this
project and
>>>>> >> >increasing the length of the release process stops people from
being able
>>>>> >> >to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend
>>>>> >> >process we probably would of released by now. The previous
version of
>>>>> >> >Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10
days from
>>>>> >> >start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in
the game.
>>>>> >> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
>>>>> >> third-party content look good.  I was hoping the third parties
would have
>>>>> >> offered their thoughts by now.  I’m wondering if they’ve at least
tried
>>>>> >> the nightly build at [1] and saw how their content appears,
because that’s
>>>>> >> how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up
yesterday [2]?
>>>>> >> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server
setup.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Both Squiggly and Third Party examples are highlighted in the
>>>>> >> RELEASE_NOTES and both are not fully operational.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content
load
>>>>> >> >strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather
than when
>>>>> >> >we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several
months ago.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It never crossed my mind until I saw the issue brought up on this
thread.
>>>>> >> If we had established Jenkins builds sooner, then maybe we would
have
>>>>> >> found it sooner, because it was only when I saw it that I realized
what
>>>>> >> was going on, and only after thinking about it more did it occur
to me
>>>>> >> that we really should get Marshall Plan separation from the third
parties.
>>>>> >>  If we can’t engage them on this sizing/position issue, we
probably don’t
>>>>> >> want to depend on them staying in sync on SDK versions going
forward.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -Alex
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> [1]http://s.apache.org/sC4
>>>>> >> [2]http://s.apache.org/hqe
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>>>>> > Ardisia Labs
>>>>> >www.ardisialabs.com
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>>>>> Ardisia Labs
>>>>>www.ardisialabs.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>>> Ardisia Labs
>>>www.ardisialabs.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
> Ardisia Labs
>www.ardisialabs.com

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com>]

How's this?

link: http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg

Image is also attached.


On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Jake.  I linked to the image url you and tested the app.  It looks
> too tiny.  It is a 400x400 image.  We probably need a 800x800 for it to
> look nice and readable.  Also, a line of text in the image would probably
> work.
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi OmPrakash,
>>
>> Sounds like the image is the only thing the end-user will see.  Should I
>> add the textual description directly to the image, or will there be a Label
>> with the description.
>>
>> If you can add the textual description via a Flex text component, then
>> here is the image you can use:
>> http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>>
>> If there is no textual description, please let me know and I'll fire up
>> my trusty Fireworks graphics editor and add some text to the image.  At the
>> minimum the image should have "Click To Open" on it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> - Jake
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosmallm@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> (CC-ing Flexicious and Jake@Ardisia)
>>>
>>> I have a fix ready to be checked in that uses an image and a click event
>>> to take the user to a third party demo page.  From my FB debug console, I
>>> don't see any securitydomain exceptions when I do this.  Whereas, with
>>> loading a swf, I get a securitydomain error.
>>>
>>> Jake, can you send me a link to a jpg image you want to use?  I will use
>>> the link: http://www.ardisialabs.com/tour-de-flex
>>>
>>> Sal, do you want to do the same, please?
>>>
>>> Let's see if this works.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
>>>> about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>>>>
>>>> I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks
>>>> for
>>>> including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
>>>> nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or so
>>>> compile errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
>>>> like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
>>>> However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the
>>>> problem
>>>> and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the layout
>>>> issues are.
>>>>
>>>> I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
>>>> could just be a label and a link?
>>>>
>>>> - Jake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
>>>> > about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>>>> >
>>>> > I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks
>>>> for
>>>> > including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
>>>> > nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or  so
>>>> > compiling errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent
>>>> components
>>>> > like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
>>>> > However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the
>>>> problem
>>>> > and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the
>>>> layout
>>>> > issues are.
>>>> >
>>>> > I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
>>>> > could just be a label and a link?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Say something like what I have now, except go ahead and drop the
>>>> imagehave
>>>> > a single page with a list of third party components arranged in a grid
>>>> > format with a short description of each and a link to the demo.  This
>>>> way,
>>>> > it could be compiled into the app with minimal effort and
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process
>>>> >> >doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead
>>>> in the
>>>> >> >water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not
>>>> have
>>>> >> >releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this
>>>> project and
>>>> >> >increasing the length of the release process stops people from
>>>> being able
>>>> >> >to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend
>>>> >> >process we probably would of released by now. The previous version
>>>> of
>>>> >> >Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days
>>>> from
>>>> >> >start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the
>>>> game.
>>>> >> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
>>>> >> third-party content look good.  I was hoping the third parties would
>>>> have
>>>> >> offered their thoughts by now.  I’m wondering if they’ve at least
>>>> tried
>>>> >> the nightly build at [1] and saw how their content appears, because
>>>> that’s
>>>> >> how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday
>>>> [2]?
>>>> >> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server
>>>> setup.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Both Squiggly and Third Party examples are highlighted in the
>>>> >> RELEASE_NOTES and both are not fully operational.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content
>>>> load
>>>> >> >strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather
>>>> than when
>>>> >> >we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several
>>>> months ago.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It never crossed my mind until I saw the issue brought up on this
>>>> thread.
>>>> >> If we had established Jenkins builds sooner, then maybe we would have
>>>> >> found it sooner, because it was only when I saw it that I realized
>>>> what
>>>> >> was going on, and only after thinking about it more did it occur to
>>>> me
>>>> >> that we really should get Marshall Plan separation from the third
>>>> parties.
>>>> >>  If we can’t engage them on this sizing/position issue, we probably
>>>> don’t
>>>> >> want to depend on them staying in sync on SDK versions going forward.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -Alex
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
>>>> >> [2] http://s.apache.org/hqe
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>>>> > Ardisia Labs
>>>> > www.ardisialabs.com
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>>>> Ardisia Labs
>>>> www.ardisialabs.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>> Ardisia Labs
>> www.ardisialabs.com
>>
>
>


-- 
Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
Ardisia Labs
www.ardisialabs.com

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Jake.  I linked to the image url you and tested the app.  It looks
too tiny.  It is a 400x400 image.  We probably need a 800x800 for it to
look nice and readable.  Also, a line of text in the image would probably
work.

Thanks,
Om

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:

> Hi OmPrakash,
>
> Sounds like the image is the only thing the end-user will see.  Should I
> add the textual description directly to the image, or will there be a Label
> with the description.
>
> If you can add the textual description via a Flex text component, then
> here is the image you can use:
> http://www.ardisialabs.com/tourDeFlex/tour-de-flex.jpg
>
> If there is no textual description, please let me know and I'll fire up my
> trusty Fireworks graphics editor and add some text to the image.  At the
> minimum the image should have "Click To Open" on it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Jake
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:02 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> (CC-ing Flexicious and Jake@Ardisia)
>>
>> I have a fix ready to be checked in that uses an image and a click event
>> to take the user to a third party demo page.  From my FB debug console, I
>> don't see any securitydomain exceptions when I do this.  Whereas, with
>> loading a swf, I get a securitydomain error.
>>
>> Jake, can you send me a link to a jpg image you want to use?  I will use
>> the link: http://www.ardisialabs.com/tour-de-flex
>>
>> Sal, do you want to do the same, please?
>>
>> Let's see if this works.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
>>> about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>>>
>>> I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
>>> including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
>>> nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or so
>>> compile errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
>>> like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
>>> However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the
>>> problem
>>> and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the layout
>>> issues are.
>>>
>>> I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
>>> could just be a label and a link?
>>>
>>> - Jake
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
>>> > about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>>> >
>>> > I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks
>>> for
>>> > including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
>>> > nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or  so
>>> > compiling errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent
>>> components
>>> > like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
>>> > However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the
>>> problem
>>> > and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the
>>> layout
>>> > issues are.
>>> >
>>> > I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
>>> > could just be a label and a link?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Say something like what I have now, except go ahead and drop the
>>> imagehave
>>> > a single page with a list of third party components arranged in a grid
>>> > format with a short description of each and a link to the demo.  This
>>> way,
>>> > it could be compiled into the app with minimal effort and
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process
>>> >> >doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in
>>> the
>>> >> >water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not
>>> have
>>> >> >releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this
>>> project and
>>> >> >increasing the length of the release process stops people from being
>>> able
>>> >> >to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend
>>> >> >process we probably would of released by now. The previous version of
>>> >> >Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days
>>> from
>>> >> >start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the
>>> game.
>>> >> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
>>> >> third-party content look good.  I was hoping the third parties would
>>> have
>>> >> offered their thoughts by now.  I’m wondering if they’ve at least
>>> tried
>>> >> the nightly build at [1] and saw how their content appears, because
>>> that’s
>>> >> how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
>>> >>
>>> >> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday
>>> [2]?
>>> >> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server
>>> setup.
>>> >>
>>> >> Both Squiggly and Third Party examples are highlighted in the
>>> >> RELEASE_NOTES and both are not fully operational.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content
>>> load
>>> >> >strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather than
>>> when
>>> >> >we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several months
>>> ago.
>>> >>
>>> >> It never crossed my mind until I saw the issue brought up on this
>>> thread.
>>> >> If we had established Jenkins builds sooner, then maybe we would have
>>> >> found it sooner, because it was only when I saw it that I realized
>>> what
>>> >> was going on, and only after thinking about it more did it occur to me
>>> >> that we really should get Marshall Plan separation from the third
>>> parties.
>>> >>  If we can’t engage them on this sizing/position issue, we probably
>>> don’t
>>> >> want to depend on them staying in sync on SDK versions going forward.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Alex
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
>>> >> [2] http://s.apache.org/hqe
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>>> > Ardisia Labs
>>> > www.ardisialabs.com
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
>>> Ardisia Labs
>>> www.ardisialabs.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
> Ardisia Labs
> www.ardisialabs.com
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

(CC-ing Flexicious and Jake@Ardisia)

I have a fix ready to be checked in that uses an image and a click event to
take the user to a third party demo page.  From my FB debug console, I
don't see any securitydomain exceptions when I do this.  Whereas, with
loading a swf, I get a securitydomain error.

Jake, can you send me a link to a jpg image you want to use?  I will use
the link: http://www.ardisialabs.com/tour-de-flex

Sal, do you want to do the same, please?

Let's see if this works.

Thanks,
Om

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
> about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>
> I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
> including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
> nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or so
> compile errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
> like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
> However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the problem
> and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the layout
> issues are.
>
> I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
> could just be a label and a link?
>
> - Jake
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
> > about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
> >
> > I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
> > including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
> > nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or  so
> > compiling errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
> > like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
> > However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the
> problem
> > and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the layout
> > issues are.
> >
> > I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
> > could just be a label and a link?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Say something like what I have now, except go ahead and drop the
> imagehave
> > a single page with a list of third party components arranged in a grid
> > format with a short description of each and a link to the demo.  This
> way,
> > it could be compiled into the app with minimal effort and
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process
> >> >doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in
> the
> >> >water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not have
> >> >releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this project
> and
> >> >increasing the length of the release process stops people from being
> able
> >> >to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend
> >> >process we probably would of released by now. The previous version of
> >> >Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days
> from
> >> >start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.
> >>
> >> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the
> game.
> >> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
> >> third-party content look good.  I was hoping the third parties would
> have
> >> offered their thoughts by now.  I’m wondering if they’ve at least tried
> >> the nightly build at [1] and saw how their content appears, because
> that’s
> >> how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
> >>
> >> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday [2]?
> >> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server setup.
> >>
> >> Both Squiggly and Third Party examples are highlighted in the
> >> RELEASE_NOTES and both are not fully operational.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content load
> >> >strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather than
> when
> >> >we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several months
> ago.
> >>
> >> It never crossed my mind until I saw the issue brought up on this
> thread.
> >> If we had established Jenkins builds sooner, then maybe we would have
> >> found it sooner, because it was only when I saw it that I realized what
> >> was going on, and only after thinking about it more did it occur to me
> >> that we really should get Marshall Plan separation from the third
> parties.
> >>  If we can’t engage them on this sizing/position issue, we probably
> don’t
> >> want to depend on them staying in sync on SDK versions going forward.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
> >> [2] http://s.apache.org/hqe
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
> > Ardisia Labs
> > www.ardisialabs.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
> Ardisia Labs
> www.ardisialabs.com
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

>  I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
> nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or so
> compile errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
> like a Spark RichTextEditor

Just in case anyone runs into this issue you need the latest released version of the Apache Flex SDK to compile all of the examples due to examples for versions of released Apache Flex SDK. Most of the other ant targets should work fine with easier versions of the SDK.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com>]

Hi,

I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.

I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or so
compile errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the problem
and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the layout
issues are.

I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
could just be a label and a link?

- Jake



On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
> about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.
>
> I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
> including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
> nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or  so
> compiling errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
> like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
> However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the problem
> and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the layout
> issues are.
>
> I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
> could just be a label and a link?
>
>
>
>
> Say something like what I have now, except go ahead and drop the imagehave
> a single page with a list of third party components arranged in a grid
> format with a short description of each and a link to the demo.  This way,
> it could be compiled into the app with minimal effort and
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> >So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process
>> >doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in the
>> >water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not have
>> >releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this project and
>> >increasing the length of the release process stops people from being able
>> >to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend
>> >process we probably would of released by now. The previous version of
>> >Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days from
>> >start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.
>>
>> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the game.
>> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
>> third-party content look good.  I was hoping the third parties would have
>> offered their thoughts by now.  I’m wondering if they’ve at least tried
>> the nightly build at [1] and saw how their content appears, because that’s
>> how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
>>
>> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday [2]?
>> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server setup.
>>
>> Both Squiggly and Third Party examples are highlighted in the
>> RELEASE_NOTES and both are not fully operational.
>>
>> >
>> >It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content load
>> >strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather than when
>> >we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several months ago.
>>
>> It never crossed my mind until I saw the issue brought up on this thread.
>> If we had established Jenkins builds sooner, then maybe we would have
>> found it sooner, because it was only when I saw it that I realized what
>> was going on, and only after thinking about it more did it occur to me
>> that we really should get Marshall Plan separation from the third parties.
>>  If we can’t engage them on this sizing/position issue, we probably don’t
>> want to depend on them staying in sync on SDK versions going forward.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
>> [2] http://s.apache.org/hqe
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
> Ardisia Labs
> www.ardisialabs.com
>



-- 
Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
Ardisia Labs
www.ardisialabs.com

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Jake Knerr <ja...@ardisialabs.com>]

Hi,

I am one of the third-parties, the "Ardisia Component Library".  Sorry
about not responding earlier, I just read the thread.

I am thrilled to be included in the Tour De Flex, so first off thanks for
including this new feature. I tried building the TourDeFlex with the
nightly build from earlier in the thread but I was hit with 100 or  so
compiling errors with path errors and pointers to non-existent components
like a Spark RichTextEditor so I must be using an incorrect build.
However, earlier in this thread OmPrakash posted screenshots of the problem
and I looked at the nightly binary build so I have an idea of the layout
issues are.

I hate to cause all this trouble . Perhaps my page in the Tour De Flex
could just be a label and a link?




Say something like what I have now, except go ahead and drop the imagehave
a single page with a list of third party components arranged in a grid
format with a short description of each and a link to the demo.  This way,
it could be compiled into the app with minimal effort and

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process
> >doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in the
> >water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not have
> >releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this project and
> >increasing the length of the release process stops people from being able
> >to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend
> >process we probably would of released by now. The previous version of
> >Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days from
> >start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.
>
> Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the game.
> It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
> third-party content look good.  I was hoping the third parties would have
> offered their thoughts by now.  I’m wondering if they’ve at least tried
> the nightly build at [1] and saw how their content appears, because that’s
> how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.
>
> Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday [2]?
> I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server setup.
>
> Both Squiggly and Third Party examples are highlighted in the
> RELEASE_NOTES and both are not fully operational.
>
> >
> >It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content load
> >strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather than when
> >we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several months ago.
>
> It never crossed my mind until I saw the issue brought up on this thread.
> If we had established Jenkins builds sooner, then maybe we would have
> found it sooner, because it was only when I saw it that I realized what
> was going on, and only after thinking about it more did it occur to me
> that we really should get Marshall Plan separation from the third parties.
>  If we can’t engage them on this sizing/position issue, we probably don’t
> want to depend on them staying in sync on SDK versions going forward.
>
> -Alex
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
> [2] http://s.apache.org/hqe
>
>


-- 
Jake Knerr - Flex Developer
Ardisia Labs
www.ardisialabs.com

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/7/14, 12:34 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process
>doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in the
>water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not have
>releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this project and
>increasing the length of the release process stops people from being able
>to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend
>process we probably would of released by now. The previous version of
>Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days from
>start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.

Sometimes, releases get stuck on hard issues discovered late in the game.
It is clear you want to ship as-is, but I think we should make the
third-party content look good.  I was hoping the third parties would have
offered their thoughts by now.  I’m wondering if they’ve at least tried
the nightly build at [1] and saw how their content appears, because that’s
how it will behave when published to flex.a.o.

Also, have you investigated the Squiggly issue brought up yesterday [2]?
I also get the exception. It could just be a bug in the CI server setup.

Both Squiggly and Third Party examples are highlighted in the
RELEASE_NOTES and both are not fully operational.

>
>It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content load
>strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather than when
>we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several months ago.

It never crossed my mind until I saw the issue brought up on this thread.
If we had established Jenkins builds sooner, then maybe we would have
found it sooner, because it was only when I saw it that I realized what
was going on, and only after thinking about it more did it occur to me
that we really should get Marshall Plan separation from the third parties.
 If we can’t engage them on this sizing/position issue, we probably don’t
want to depend on them staying in sync on SDK versions going forward.

-Alex

[1] http://s.apache.org/sC4
[2] http://s.apache.org/hqe

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

>
> As the release manager I think it is a minor issue but let's hear from
>> other people.
>>
> Me too, but others feel stronger. Surely we can just replace with a link
> to the web site for now easily enough ?
>
> There's no rush to get this out right now as far as I can tell, so if no
> one gets around to patching it in this week it's no big deal ?
>
> Let's all just chill out,
> Tom
>

+1

EdB



-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>]

On 07/11/14 08:34, Justin Mclean wrote:
> As the release manager I think it is a minor issue but let's hear from other people.
Me too, but others feel stronger. Surely we can just replace with a link 
to the web site for now easily enough ?

There's no rush to get this out right now as far as I can tell, so if no 
one gets around to patching it in this week it's no big deal ?

Let's all just chill out,
Tom

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> I think removing 3rdparty.xml and updating the RELEASE_NOTES would be
> sufficient.

But then the release notes would not reflect what has actually been added in the source release which is what they need to represent. OR are you suggesting we have different release notes for the binary and source?

>>> Or at minimum, mention in RELEASE_NOTES that 3rd-party support isn’t fully implemented.

That a possibility but could require a whole new release candidate just for a minor read me change. IMO The issue can be raised in JIRA.

> IMO, suggesting the documentation of a known defect in the RELEASE_NOTES
> does not turn this discussion into a “bike shed” topic. 

So every release note should list all outstanding JIRA bugs and issues? Every release we're done has had know issues and we certainly don't list them all.

> We haven’t heard from folks who thought it was a minor issue before my
> report on the root cause, so maybe we should confirm their thoughts.

As the release manager I think it is a minor issue but let's hear from other people. The improvements to the examples (in terms and look and feel) are significant and the usage of Tour De Flex is significant - now approaching 20,000 visits (each visit looking at multiple examples) and 15,000 unique visitors. That enough reason to make a release rather than prolonging this process by weeks or months.The existing Tour De flex has some very ugly examples that have been fixed in this release.

> Plus, we now have more options for them to consider.  IMO, the several
> options are:
> 
> 1) Ship the current source without documenting a known defect, which is
> that third party content may not position and size correctly, and/or
> despite the RELEASE_NOTES mentioning 3rd party support, there won’t be 3rd
> party examples on the flex.a.o TDF site.
> 2) Document the known defect
> 3) Remove/hide the 3rd party feature and remove its mention from the
> RELEASE_NOTES and JIRA.
> 3) Wait a bit longer and decide on how to properly load 3rd party SWFs
> then implement it
> 4) Change the implementation to link to 3rd party sites instead of loading
> their SWFs.

So how do we reach consensus on this in a timely way? If the process doesn't allow a vote and/or people don't vote it's basically dead in the water. I would like to see this released sooner than later and not have releases hanging for weeks, not everyone is full time on this project and increasing the length of the release process stops people from being able to be a release manager. If we had stuck to the official recommend process we probably would of released by now. The previous version of Tour De Flex had two release candidates and was released in 10 days from start of the first RC vote to the final vote result.

> And I don’t see any major hurry to ship TDF 1.2

The improvements to the examples is reasonably significant and I don't wee why we should delay in releasing. Obviously I wouldn't of proposed a release in the first place if I didn't think their was a need.

> so I’m also content to wait and engage the 3rd party contributors and
> decide on a proper strategy for loading their content.

My guess is that don't actually care that much, they would rather like to see their examples in Tour De Flex sooner than later.

It's also curious as to why you only decide to bring this content load strategy up now and state it as a blocker for releasing, rather than when we we were discussing adding 3rd party support for it several months ago.

Thanks,
Justin

RE: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Neil Madsen <li...@cranialinteractive.com>]

As it currently stands I would vote for #3 of the proposed list of choices.
Leaning more to hide than remove. Simply in the interests of pushing out a
release and allowing users to actually get a chance to use the updated
version of TDF. There is clearly a demand for it amongst users. It would be
nice to have all of the 3rd party pieces loaded in and totally functioning
but right now it's currently blocking the release. If TDF gets released
momentum is gained or at least retained and buys time to release an update
in a week or 2 or 3 that addresses the 3rd party issues. I just don't see it
as an all or nothing proposition. Release early and release often. Right? 

Anyway, that's just my thoughts on it right now. It's late (really late)
here right now. Perhaps after my coffee in the morning I'll see it
different. Until then....

Neil


-----Original Message-----
From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:erik@ixsoftware.nl] 
Sent: November-07-14 12:05 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

How about: "ask the third parties?"

They must have an opinion on the "blocking" status of this issue ...

EdB


> Plus, we now have more options for them to consider.  IMO, the several 
> options are:
>
> 1) Ship the current source without documenting a known defect, which 
> is that third party content may not position and size correctly, 
> and/or despite the RELEASE_NOTES mentioning 3rd party support, there 
> won't be 3rd party examples on the flex.a.o TDF site.
> 2) Document the known defect
> 3) Remove/hide the 3rd party feature and remove its mention from the 
> RELEASE_NOTES and JIRA.
> 4) Wait a bit longer and decide on how to properly load 3rd party SWFs 
> then implement it
> 5) Change the implementation to link to 3rd party sites instead of 
> loading their SWFs.

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

How about: "ask the third parties?"

They must have an opinion on the "blocking" status of this issue ...

EdB



On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/6/14, 4:06 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdparty.xml
> >> from the source package and update the RELEASE_NOTES.
> >
> >-1 to that we would have to revert about a dozen fixes (via cherry
> >picking) to remove 3rd party example support for Tour De Flex.
>
> I think removing 3rdparty.xml and updating the RELEASE_NOTES would be
> sufficient.
>
> >
> >>  To say in the RELEASE_NOTES that there is support and then not support
> >>it on the
> >> flex.a.o version doesn’t feel right to me.
> >
> >It does support it we just not showing any 3rd party examples in the
> >public Tour De Flex web site. I was trying to make a compromise to get
> >the release out the door, but seems fairly clear that is not possible.
> >
> >>  Or at minimum, mention in RELEASE_NOTES that 3rd-party support isn’t
> >>fully implemented.
> >
> >This sounds like bike shedding to me.
>
> IMO, suggesting the documentation of a known defect in the RELEASE_NOTES
> does not turn this discussion into a “bike shed” topic.  I think that’s
> one of the things RELEASE_NOTES are for.
>
> >
> >> In the “no RC” process we’re practicing, there is no new RC to cut and
> >> upload to dist, or VOTE to cancel until this discussion reaches the
> >>point
> >> where it is pretty clear there are enough PMC votes to ship.
> >
> >Which currently seem impossible so at this point I think I'm just going
> >to give up on releasing it. Sorry to the 15,000 + users who use this and
> >the 3rd party contributors who were waiting on the new release.
> >
> >The whole point of the release process is not to have consensus of the
> >entire PMC, but to only have enough people who will vote +1, following
> >this new no RC process I can't see how this point can be reached.
> >
> >Currently we have PMC members who are effectively blocking the release or
> >a vote on it but are unwilling to help out in fixing with they see as
> >issues. If we have these issues on a simple release like this I can't
> >imagine this process working for the installer or the SDK.
>
> We haven’t heard from folks who thought it was a minor issue before my
> report on the root cause, so maybe we should confirm their thoughts.
> Plus, we now have more options for them to consider.  IMO, the several
> options are:
>
> 1) Ship the current source without documenting a known defect, which is
> that third party content may not position and size correctly, and/or
> despite the RELEASE_NOTES mentioning 3rd party support, there won’t be 3rd
> party examples on the flex.a.o TDF site.
> 2) Document the known defect
> 3) Remove/hide the 3rd party feature and remove its mention from the
> RELEASE_NOTES and JIRA.
> 3) Wait a bit longer and decide on how to properly load 3rd party SWFs
> then implement it
> 4) Change the implementation to link to 3rd party sites instead of loading
> their SWFs.
>
> IMO, shipping a known defect without documenting it will cost the
> community more time in answering questions about why it isn’t sizing and
> positioning correctly, and why there aren’t any 3rd party examples on the
> flex.a.o version of TDF than it will to change the RELEASE_NOTES and an
> XML file before we vote.  And I don’t see any major hurry to ship TDF 1.2,
> so I’m also content to wait and engage the 3rd party contributors and
> decide on a proper strategy for loading their content.
>
> -Alex
>
>


-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/6/14, 4:06 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdparty.xml
>> from the source package and update the RELEASE_NOTES.
>
>-1 to that we would have to revert about a dozen fixes (via cherry
>picking) to remove 3rd party example support for Tour De Flex.

I think removing 3rdparty.xml and updating the RELEASE_NOTES would be
sufficient.

>
>>  To say in the RELEASE_NOTES that there is support and then not support
>>it on the
>> flex.a.o version doesn’t feel right to me.
>
>It does support it we just not showing any 3rd party examples in the
>public Tour De Flex web site. I was trying to make a compromise to get
>the release out the door, but seems fairly clear that is not possible.
>
>>  Or at minimum, mention in RELEASE_NOTES that 3rd-party support isn’t
>>fully implemented.
>
>This sounds like bike shedding to me.

IMO, suggesting the documentation of a known defect in the RELEASE_NOTES
does not turn this discussion into a “bike shed” topic.  I think that’s
one of the things RELEASE_NOTES are for.

>
>> In the “no RC” process we’re practicing, there is no new RC to cut and
>> upload to dist, or VOTE to cancel until this discussion reaches the
>>point
>> where it is pretty clear there are enough PMC votes to ship.
>
>Which currently seem impossible so at this point I think I'm just going
>to give up on releasing it. Sorry to the 15,000 + users who use this and
>the 3rd party contributors who were waiting on the new release.
>
>The whole point of the release process is not to have consensus of the
>entire PMC, but to only have enough people who will vote +1, following
>this new no RC process I can't see how this point can be reached.
>
>Currently we have PMC members who are effectively blocking the release or
>a vote on it but are unwilling to help out in fixing with they see as
>issues. If we have these issues on a simple release like this I can't
>imagine this process working for the installer or the SDK.

We haven’t heard from folks who thought it was a minor issue before my
report on the root cause, so maybe we should confirm their thoughts.
Plus, we now have more options for them to consider.  IMO, the several
options are:

1) Ship the current source without documenting a known defect, which is
that third party content may not position and size correctly, and/or
despite the RELEASE_NOTES mentioning 3rd party support, there won’t be 3rd
party examples on the flex.a.o TDF site.
2) Document the known defect
3) Remove/hide the 3rd party feature and remove its mention from the
RELEASE_NOTES and JIRA.
3) Wait a bit longer and decide on how to properly load 3rd party SWFs
then implement it
4) Change the implementation to link to 3rd party sites instead of loading
their SWFs.

IMO, shipping a known defect without documenting it will cost the
community more time in answering questions about why it isn’t sizing and
positioning correctly, and why there aren’t any 3rd party examples on the
flex.a.o version of TDF than it will to change the RELEASE_NOTES and an
XML file before we vote.  And I don’t see any major hurry to ship TDF 1.2,
so I’m also content to wait and engage the 3rd party contributors and
decide on a proper strategy for loading their content.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdparty.xml
> from the source package and update the RELEASE_NOTES.

-1 to that we would have to revert about a dozen fixes (via cherry picking) to remove 3rd party example support for Tour De Flex.

>  To say in the RELEASE_NOTES that there is support and then not support it on the
> flex.a.o version doesn’t feel right to me.

It does support it we just not showing any 3rd party examples in the public Tour De Flex web site. I was trying to make a compromise to get the release out the door, but seems fairly clear that is not possible.

>  Or at minimum, mention in RELEASE_NOTES that 3rd-party support isn’t fully implemented.

This sounds like bike shedding to me.

> In the “no RC” process we’re practicing, there is no new RC to cut and
> upload to dist, or VOTE to cancel until this discussion reaches the point
> where it is pretty clear there are enough PMC votes to ship.

Which currently seem impossible so at this point I think I'm just going to give up on releasing it. Sorry to the 15,000 + users who use this and the 3rd party contributors who were waiting on the new release.

The whole point of the release process is not to have consensus of the entire PMC, but to only have enough people who will vote +1, following this new no RC process I can't see how this point can be reached.

Currently we have PMC members who are effectively blocking the release or a vote on it but are unwilling to help out in fixing with they see as issues. If we have these issues on a simple release like this I can't imagine this process working for the installer or the SDK.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/6/14, 1:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>So far we had a couple of PMC members who consider the 3rd Party issue to
>be blocking (but no indication they will provide a patch) and a couple
>who don't think it is blocking. Normally may be enough for a vote to pass
>but with the "no RC" process that's unclear.
>
>Looks like we have a choice:
>- Someone can provide a patch for this. Is anyone wiling to do so?

IMO, we don’t know what code to change without agreement within the
project as to whether to import-load or use Marshall Plan, then agreement
from the third-parties to do their part.

>- Drop 3rd party support from this release, and hopefully have it in a
>future release.
>
>Doping 3rd party support could be achieved by having an empty 3rd party
>XML so there may be be no real need for another release candidate / vote.
>The readme/release_notes say adding support for 3rd party examples that
>would be still be correct we would just not have any on the Tour De Flex
>web site.

Seems like if we drop 3rd-party support, we should remove 3rdparty.xml
from the source package and update the RELEASE_NOTES.  To say in the
RELEASE_NOTES that there is support and then not support it on the
flex.a.o version doesn’t feel right to me.  Or at minimum, mention in
RELEASE_NOTES that 3rd-party support isn’t fully implemented.

In the “no RC” process we’re practicing, there is no new RC to cut and
upload to dist, or VOTE to cancel until this discussion reaches the point
where it is pretty clear there are enough PMC votes to ship.  We should be
able to make the changes to RELEASE_NOTES and/or 3rdparty.xml and any
other place and the nightly build will pick it up in a few hours and we
can make sure we like it.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

So far we had a couple of PMC members who consider the 3rd Party issue to be blocking (but no indication they will provide a patch) and a couple who don't think it is blocking. Normally may be enough for a vote to pass but with the "no RC" process that's unclear. 

Looks like we have a choice:
- Someone can provide a patch for this. Is anyone wiling to do so?
- Drop 3rd party support from this release, and hopefully have it in a future release.

Note that setting loadForCompatibility to true (even if just for the 3rd party content)  doesn't fix the sizing issue and further work would be required beyond that to get the size correct.

While 3rd party support is certainly something I 'd like to see in this release (and so would the 3rd party contributors I assume), there are other important fixes as well and there is still value in releasing without it and saving it for a future release.

Doping 3rd party support could be achieved by having an empty 3rd party XML so there may be be no real need for another release candidate / vote. The readme/release_notes say adding support for 3rd party examples that would be still be correct we would just not have any on the Tour De Flex web site.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/6/14, 12:51 AM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> If trustContent=false, the SWFLoader doesn’t know it loaded another Flex
>> SWF.  There is code in SWFLoader that tries to size loaded Flex SWFs
>> differently than other SWFs.
>
>From what I can see (but not 100% sure) it's loadForCompatibility not
>trustContent. Setting loadForCompatibility to true breaks the sizing of
>all examples not just the 3rd party ones.

trustContent is for import-loading.  loadForCompatibility is for Marshall
Plan loading.  Unless both the loading and loaded SWFs have the
MarshallingSupport linked in, setting loadForCompatibility will cause
problems because SWFLoader will try to use the marshaling protocol to
communicate between SWFs and the implementation code is not linked in.

>
>> We have to decide how secure we want to be.  If we accidentally leave a
>> hole where someone can inject a URL to load, it might get exploited.  If
>> we put a whitelist in an XML file on our server, that might be secure
>> enough.
>
>AFAIK Having trustContent = false is the most secure, which is what we
>currently do.

Yes, which is why it is the default.  That’s why, when discussing
import-loading, I also mentioned a whitelist.  You would only set
trustContent=true when the URL was in the whitelist.

Now, having slept on this, my new recommendation is that we forget
import-loading and require 3rd party examples to use Marshall Plan and we
add Marshalling Support to TDF and use loadForCompatibility only for
loading 3rd party content.  We could have it on all the time and add
marshaling support to all 300 examples, but it adds some weight.

The main reason to use Marshall Plan, besides its ability to talk to
sandboxed 3rd party content is this:  Any SWF that is import-loaded MUST
be on the same version of the Flex SDK otherwise there is a risk of verify
errors if the APIs in any SDK class the 3rd Party content depends on is
changed.  As we get more and more 3rd party content and make new releases
of Apache Flex, it will become too painful to try to get all 3rd parties
synced up to the latest Flex SDK before we cut a new TDF release.

3rd party contributors: how does this sound to you?

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> If trustContent=false, the SWFLoader doesn’t know it loaded another Flex
> SWF.  There is code in SWFLoader that tries to size loaded Flex SWFs
> differently than other SWFs.

From what I can see (but not 100% sure) it's loadForCompatibility not trustContent. Setting loadForCompatibility to true breaks the sizing of all examples not just the 3rd party ones.

> We have to decide how secure we want to be.  If we accidentally leave a
> hole where someone can inject a URL to load, it might get exploited.  If
> we put a whitelist in an XML file on our server, that might be secure
> enough.

AFAIK Having trustContent = false is the most secure, which is what we currently do.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

Going to try to consolidate this thread a bit.

On 11/5/14, 11:53 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
>> After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to
>>fit
>> instead of resizing.  Third-party content may not size correctly unless
>> “import loaded” which I don’t think is the default.
>
>Tour De Flex uses mx:SWFLoader to load content and doesn't set
>trustContent (which defaults to false) so I believe that means that
>content isn't being "import loaded". [1] Setting it to true would make it
>"import load" but that has other implications. (see line 1896 of
>SWFloader.as which sets the loaded contents securityDomain to be
>the.current domain)  Scale content default s to true [2] so I'm not sure
>that explains the odd clipping.

If trustContent=false, the SWFLoader doesn’t know it loaded another Flex
SWF.  There is code in SWFLoader that tries to size loaded Flex SWFs
differently than other SWFs.


From your other post:

> There's already a wildcard cross domain file for Flexicious [1]

Gee, I sure hope Flexicious doesn’t also serve internal apps off this
domain.  A wildcard crossdomain.xml is equivalent to leaving the door
unlocked.  If the door is for a refrigerator and you are giving away free
beer, that’s great, but if it is the door to your house and you keep other
valuables in the house, you are more likely to get robbed.

>>And if import loaded, then SWFLoader should have trustContent=true, but
>>probably only when loading third-party, just to be careful, and maybe
>>have
>>its own whitelist of domains baked into the SWF.

>Which would mean we need to make a release every time we add a 3rd party
>example which is what we are trying to avoid in the first place.

We have to decide how secure we want to be.  If we accidentally leave a
hole where someone can inject a URL to load, it might get exploited.  If
we put a whitelist in an XML file on our server, that might be secure
enough.

> If (and I can't imagine this happening) we find that a 3rd party
> is doing something naughty we can just remove them from the 3rd party
>xml 
> file until they fix the issue.

IIRC, there are two issues:

A) How hard do we have to try to prevent bad stuff from happening?  It is
fine to stop using a credit card reader that is stealing credit card
numbers once you know about it, but should we have made it harder for
someone to hack it?  It isn’t that the folks who have submitted examples
to us are evil, but what if one or more of them is some other popular
third-party library that turns out to have a security hole?


B) Similarly, the third-party may not trust Apache Flex TDF to be a good
secure host.  What if there is a security bug in Apache Flex SDKs or in
TDF?  Or in some other third-party example?  If FooCorp supplies us an
example that uses a third party library with a security hole, it could
attack the third-party example supplied by BarCorp.  BarCorp may prefer to
remain sandboxed for that reason.

Fundamentally, bad people suck, and there are too many of them out there.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
> After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to fit
> instead of resizing.  Third-party content may not size correctly unless
> “import loaded” which I don’t think is the default. 

Tour De Flex uses mx:SWFLoader to load content and doesn't set trustContent (which defaults to false) so I believe that means that content isn't being "import loaded". [1] Setting it to true would make it "import load" but that has other implications. (see line 1896 of SWFloader.as which sets the loaded contents securityDomain to be the.current domain)  Scale content default s to true [2] so I'm not sure that explains the odd clipping.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://help.adobe.com/en_US/flex/using/WS2db454920e96a9e51e63e3d11c0bf619ab-7ff0.html
2. http://help.adobe.com/en_US/FlashPlatform/reference/actionscript/3/mx/controls/SWFLoader.html

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/5/14, 9:56 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> Actually, as I was checking in the changes to the Approval script, I
>> remembered that there was one glitch in the source package: there is a
>> swfobject.js in the source package.  IMO, it either needs to be removed
>>or
>> mentioned in LICENSE, and that is a potential blocker.
>
>it is mentioned in the LICENSE so that is not a blocker:
>
>"/src/swfobject.js from SWFObject 2.2, is available under a MIT license.
>For details, see https://code.google.com/p/swfobject."

Yup, my bad, forgot to switch branches.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

> Actually, as I was checking in the changes to the Approval script, I
> remembered that there was one glitch in the source package: there is a
> swfobject.js in the source package.  IMO, it either needs to be removed or
> mentioned in LICENSE, and that is a potential blocker.

it is mentioned in the LICENSE so that is not a blocker:

"/src/swfobject.js from SWFObject 2.2, is available under a MIT license.
For details, see https://code.google.com/p/swfobject."

Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/5/14, 9:06 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:


>Meanwhile, I got the source package from the builds server and tweaked the
>approval script to allow it to work without PGP signatures and everything
>looks fine to me, so I’m good to go otherwise.

Actually, as I was checking in the changes to the Approval script, I
remembered that there was one glitch in the source package: there is a
swfobject.js in the source package.  IMO, it either needs to be removed or
mentioned in LICENSE, and that is a potential blocker.

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/5/14, 12:49 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

>I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all there,
>the display is just a bit off on a few examples and
>that probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'd label
>this 'minor', file a JIRA and move on with the release.

The Ardisia example sizing problem feels like a SecurityDomain issue.
After you force a resize with the divided box, the app scales down to fit
instead of resizing.  Third-party content may not size correctly unless
“import loaded” which I don’t think is the default.  Does TDF try to do
that?  A grep of the source didn’t turn up any use of
SWFLoader.trustContent or SecurityDomain.  And, the third-party content
needs a crossdomain.xml that permits it to be import-loaded.

TDF and the Ardisia example could also use Marshall Plan techniques
instead of giving permissions via crossdomain.xml.

Of course, I could be wrong, but that’s been the case when I’ve seen
symptoms like this in the past.  Since we’re emphasizing third-party
content in this release, I’d be tempted to say this is a blocker and we
should fix the TDF code that loads third-party content.  However, if
nobody else thinks it is a blocker and can be fixed later, I’m willing to
go along with the crowd.

Meanwhile, I got the source package from the builds server and tweaked the
approval script to allow it to work without PGP signatures and everything
looks fine to me, so I’m good to go otherwise.  How many other PMC members
have looked at the source package?  We need at least one more.

And for everyone, especially the non-PMC members, time is running out to
go explore 

http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-re
lease/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html

and let us know if you see any showstoppers before we finish this release.

Thanks,
-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

I don't see how this would be a blocker. The functionality is all there,
the display is just a bit off on a few examples and
that probably only shows on specific instances. If I were RM, I'd label
this 'minor', file a JIRA and move on with the release.

EdB



On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> HI,
>
> So do if consider this release blockers or are they minor or perhaps
> occurring due to the environment they been placed in? Can anyone suggest
> any reason to why these may be occurring and/or provide patches?
>
> (No exception is being thrown btw.)
>
> Thanks,
> Justin




-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

HI,

So do if consider this release blockers or are they minor or perhaps occurring due to the environment they been placed in? Can anyone suggest any reason to why these may be occurring and/or provide patches?

(No exception is being thrown btw.)

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>]

On 04/11/14 19:00, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> I noticed, but when you resize the top right window by dragging the divider
> between the top and bottom panes, a resize happens and all seems well. Can
> you confirm?

Ack, on
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html
and then
3rd party > Ardisia > Ardisia component library
using Player 11.2 on Linux with Firefox 33.

Maybe it's throwing an exception. Is that a debug enabled build ?

Tom

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

I noticed, but when you resize the top right window by dragging the divider
between the top and bottom panes, a resize happens and all seems well. Can
you confirm?

EdB



On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:46 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Erik, this makes testing so much easier.
>
> The thirdparty comonents page does not look right.  Here are a couple of
> screenshots:
> http://snag.gy/HpfYm.jpg
> http://snag.gy/j48KB.jpg
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
> > The nightly source builds can be found here:
> >
> >
> >
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/out/
> >
> > The nightly 'binary' build can be viewed here:
> >
> >
> >
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > EdB
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/3/14, 1:04 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >72 hours are just about up. Anyone have some feedback?
> > >
> > > The only feedback I have is that I thought we were going to iron out
> the
> > > wrinkles in the “no RC” release process on the next release after
> > > Squiggly, so I was surprised to see a vote thread for TDF.
> > >
> > > Is there some reason you decided to go with RCs for TDF?
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Erik, this makes testing so much easier.

The thirdparty comonents page does not look right.  Here are a couple of
screenshots:
http://snag.gy/HpfYm.jpg
http://snag.gy/j48KB.jpg

Thanks,
Om

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:

> The nightly source builds can be found here:
>
>
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/out/
>
> The nightly 'binary' build can be viewed here:
>
>
> http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> EdB
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 11/3/14, 1:04 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >72 hours are just about up. Anyone have some feedback?
> >
> > The only feedback I have is that I thought we were going to iron out the
> > wrinkles in the “no RC” release process on the next release after
> > Squiggly, so I was surprised to see a vote thread for TDF.
> >
> > Is there some reason you decided to go with RCs for TDF?
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>]

The nightly source builds can be found here:

http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/out/

The nightly 'binary' build can be viewed here:

http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-utilities_tour-de-flex-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/TourDeFlex/TourDeFlex3/src/index.html

Thanks,

EdB

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/3/14, 1:04 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >72 hours are just about up. Anyone have some feedback?
>
> The only feedback I have is that I thought we were going to iron out the
> wrinkles in the “no RC” release process on the next release after
> Squiggly, so I was surprised to see a vote thread for TDF.
>
> Is there some reason you decided to go with RCs for TDF?
>
> -Alex
>
>
>


-- 
Ix Multimedia Software

Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht

T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>]

On 11/3/14, 1:04 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>72 hours are just about up. Anyone have some feedback?

The only feedback I have is that I thought we were going to iron out the
wrinkles in the “no RC” release process on the next release after
Squiggly, so I was surprised to see a vote thread for TDF.

Is there some reason you decided to go with RCs for TDF?

-Alex

Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0

[Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>]

Hi,

72 hours are just about up. Anyone have some feedback?

Thanks,
Justin