You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2013/07/29 03:19:45 UTC
Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Hi,
So far the only consensus (from those who have been vocal) is not to release the voted on RC3 but:
- We don't seem to have a solution the the Flash Builder version issue other than changing version number to single digits.
- The code for the release module issues hasn't been checked in.
Are there any other issues outstanding? Someone mentioned a FDT issue but I'm not 100% what can be done there either.
If we change the version (to 4.9.5 say), we'll need to change READMEs/RELEASE_NOTES, JIRA tags, Version.as files, announcement/press release and probably a few other things.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>.
Your right :)
Regards,
SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstraat 160
2171 BL, Sassenheim
Op 30 jul. 2013, om 19:15 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
> On 7/30/13 1:48 AM, "Swen van Zanten" <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>
>> It works great.
>> Project compiles without errors
>>
>> mac osx 10.8.4
>>
>> I'll will try FB 4.6 on my win7 later
> I'm pretty sure it won't work there. Unfortunately the class I changed
> was refactored between 4.6 and 4.7.
>
> -Alex
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/30/13 1:48 AM, "Swen van Zanten" <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>It works great.
>Project compiles without errors
>
>mac osx 10.8.4
>
>I'll will try FB 4.6 on my win7 later
I'm pretty sure it won't work there. Unfortunately the class I changed
was refactored between 4.6 and 4.7.
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>.
It works great.
Project compiles without errors
mac osx 10.8.4
I'll will try FB 4.6 on my win7 later
Regards,
SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstraat 160
2171 BL, Sassenheim
Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:57 heeft Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> het volgende geschreven:
> Same here:
>
> Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be
> "eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
>
> ???
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try again or
>> contact the server administrator."
>>
>> Also, the folder in my FB installation
>> is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>
>> This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
>>> permission..
>>> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>> But on my machine it is:
>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>>> Hoofdstraat 160
>>> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>>>
>>> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
>>>>
>>>> I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get around
>>>> this problem.
>>>>
>>>> The patched jar and a readme is up on
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
>>>>
>>>> Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
>>>> with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code
>>>>> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0
>>>>> by doing:
>>>>>
>>>>> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
>>>>>
>>>>> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0
>>> to
>>>>> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really
>>>>> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of
>>>>> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> init(..., ...,
>>>>> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0));
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated
>>>>> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go
>>> in
>>>>> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
>>> means
>>>>>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
>>>>>>> update on the 3 issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of
>>>>>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took
>>> the
>>>>>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>>>>>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team.
>>> And
>>>>>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If
>>> we
>>>>>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the
>>>>>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe
>>>>>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
>>>>>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
>>>>>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
>>> really
>>>>>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
>>> think
>>>>>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the
>>>>>>> change to ListCollectionView.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3,
>>> and
>>>>>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
>>>>>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something
>>>>>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
>>> something
>>>>>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of
>>>>>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should
>>>>>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does
>>> the
>>>>>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>>>>>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
>>>>>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
>>> manual
>>>>>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
>>>>>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions
>>>>>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an
>>>>>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
>>> patching &
>>>>>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
>>> creating a
>>>>>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it
>>>>>> simple (which is difficult to do).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by João Fernandes <jo...@gmail.com>.
I'm with Erik here too, fix it in develop + branch both issues.
On 30 July 2013 07:57, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Same here:
>
> Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be
> "eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
>
> ???
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try again
> or
> > contact the server administrator."
> >
> > Also, the folder in my FB installation
> > is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
> >
> > This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
> >> permission..
> >> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
> >> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
> >> But on my machine it is:
> >> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
> >> Hoofdstraat 160
> >> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
> >>
> >> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
> >> volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> > Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
> >> >
> >> > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get
> around
> >> > this problem.
> >> >
> >> > The patched jar and a readme is up on
> >> > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
> >> >
> >> > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
> >> > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do
> next.
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is
> code
> >> >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than
> 5.0.0
> >> >> by doing:
> >> >>
> >> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
> >> >>
> >> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex
> 5.0.0
> >> to
> >> >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we
> really
> >> >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an
> instance of
> >> >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> init(..., ...,
> >> >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new
> Version(4,0,0));
> >> >>
> >> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get
> updated
> >> >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to
> go
> >> in
> >> >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Alex
> >> >>
> >> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
> >> means
> >> >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
> >> >>>> update on the 3 issues:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small
> population of
> >> >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who
> took
> >> the
> >> >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
> >> >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team.
> >> And
> >> >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause.
> If
> >> we
> >> >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in
> the
> >> >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But
> maybe
> >> >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
> >> >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
> >> >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
> >> really
> >> >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
> >> think
> >> >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert
> the
> >> >>>> change to ListCollectionView.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3,
> >> and
> >> >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -Alex
> >> >>>
> >> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
> >> >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release
> something
> >> >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
> >> something
> >> >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several
> of
> >> >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we
> should
> >> >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1)
> Does
> >> the
> >> >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
> >> >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
> >> >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
> >> manual
> >> >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
> >> >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC
> versions
> >> >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting
> on an
> >> >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
> >> patching &
> >> >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
> >> creating a
> >> >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make
> it
> >> >>> simple (which is difficult to do).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
--
João Fernandes
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by João Fernandes <jo...@gmail.com>.
Eric could you try to clean the workspace cache[1] or eventually try a new
workspace?
I can't confirm if it would solve the problem because I'm moved to IntelliJ.
[1] {workspace}/.metadata/.plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel
On 30 July 2013 07:57, Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Same here:
>
> Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be
> "eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
>
> ???
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try again
> or
> > contact the server administrator."
> >
> > Also, the folder in my FB installation
> > is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
> >
> > This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
> >> permission..
> >> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
> >> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
> >> But on my machine it is:
> >> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
> >> Hoofdstraat 160
> >> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
> >>
> >> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
> >> volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> > Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
> >> >
> >> > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get
> around
> >> > this problem.
> >> >
> >> > The patched jar and a readme is up on
> >> > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
> >> >
> >> > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
> >> > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do
> next.
> >> >
> >> > -Alex
> >> >
> >> > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is
> code
> >> >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than
> 5.0.0
> >> >> by doing:
> >> >>
> >> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
> >> >>
> >> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex
> 5.0.0
> >> to
> >> >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we
> really
> >> >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an
> instance of
> >> >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> init(..., ...,
> >> >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new
> Version(4,0,0));
> >> >>
> >> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get
> updated
> >> >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to
> go
> >> in
> >> >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Alex
> >> >>
> >> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
> >> means
> >> >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
> >> >>>> update on the 3 issues:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small
> population of
> >> >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who
> took
> >> the
> >> >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
> >> >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team.
> >> And
> >> >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause.
> If
> >> we
> >> >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in
> the
> >> >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But
> maybe
> >> >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
> >> >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
> >> >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
> >> really
> >> >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
> >> think
> >> >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert
> the
> >> >>>> change to ListCollectionView.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3,
> >> and
> >> >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -Alex
> >> >>>
> >> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
> >> >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release
> something
> >> >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
> >> something
> >> >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several
> of
> >> >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we
> should
> >> >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1)
> Does
> >> the
> >> >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
> >> >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
> >> >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
> >> manual
> >> >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
> >> >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC
> versions
> >> >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting
> on an
> >> >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
> >> patching &
> >> >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
> >> creating a
> >> >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make
> it
> >> >>> simple (which is difficult to do).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
--
João Fernandes
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
The file downloads fine.
The new jar does the trick, I get a nice, clean new project, no errors.
Thanks!
EdB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> OK, I think I've fixed the permissions. Let me know if you have a problem
> using it.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 7/30/13 12:23 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, my bad on the folder name. Updated the readme.
>>
>>Anybody know what permission I would have to change to allow the jar to be
>>downloaded?
>>
>>
>>On 7/29/13 11:57 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Same here:
>>>
>>>Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be
>>>"eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
>>>
>>>???
>>>
>>>EdB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>>><bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try
>>>>again or
>>>> contact the server administrator."
>>>>
>>>> Also, the folder in my FB installation
>>>> is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>>
>>>> This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Om
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
>>>>> permission..
>>>>> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
>>>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>>> But on my machine it is:
>>>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>>>>> Hoofdstraat 160
>>>>> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>>>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get
>>>>>around
>>>>> > this problem.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The patched jar and a readme is up on
>>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only
>>>>>work
>>>>> > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do
>>>>>next.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Alex
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is
>>>>>code
>>>>> >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than
>>>>>5.0.0
>>>>> >> by doing:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex
>>>>>5.0.0
>>>>> to
>>>>> >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we
>>>>>really
>>>>> >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an
>>>>>instance of
>>>>> >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> init(..., ...,
>>>>> >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new
>>>>>Version(4,0,0));
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get
>>>>>updated
>>>>> >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to
>>>>>go
>>>>> in
>>>>> >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -Alex
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
>>>>> means
>>>>> >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my
>>>>>latest
>>>>> >>>> update on the 3 issues:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small
>>>>>population of
>>>>> >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who
>>>>>took
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>>>>> >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB
>>>>>team.
>>>>> And
>>>>> >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause.
>>>>> If
>>>>> we
>>>>> >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in
>>>>>the
>>>>> >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But
>>>>>maybe
>>>>> >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more
>>>>>information.
>>>>> >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop
>>>>>using
>>>>> >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
>>>>> really
>>>>> >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
>>>>> think
>>>>> >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to
>>>>>revert the
>>>>> >>>> change to ListCollectionView.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and
>>>>>#3,
>>>>> and
>>>>> >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> -Alex
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
>>>>> >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release
>>>>>something
>>>>> >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
>>>>> something
>>>>> >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to
>>>>>several of
>>>>> >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we
>>>>>should
>>>>> >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1)
>>>>>Does
>>>>> the
>>>>> >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>>>>> >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the
>>>>>binary
>>>>> >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
>>>>> manual
>>>>> >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top
>>>>>IDEs:
>>>>> >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC
>>>>>versions
>>>>> >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting
>>>>>on an
>>>>> >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
>>>>> patching &
>>>>> >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
>>>>> creating a
>>>>> >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level -
>>>>>make it
>>>>> >>> simple (which is difficult to do).
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>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: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
OK, I think I've fixed the permissions. Let me know if you have a problem
using it.
-Alex
On 7/30/13 12:23 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>OK, my bad on the folder name. Updated the readme.
>
>Anybody know what permission I would have to change to allow the jar to be
>downloaded?
>
>
>On 7/29/13 11:57 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>>Same here:
>>
>>Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be
>>"eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
>>
>>???
>>
>>EdB
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
>><bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try
>>>again or
>>> contact the server administrator."
>>>
>>> Also, the folder in my FB installation
>>> is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>
>>> This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Om
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
>>>> permission..
>>>> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
>>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>> But on my machine it is:
>>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>>>> Hoofdstraat 160
>>>> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>>>>
>>>> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> > Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
>>>> >
>>>> > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get
>>>>around
>>>> > this problem.
>>>> >
>>>> > The patched jar and a readme is up on
>>>> > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
>>>> >
>>>> > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only
>>>>work
>>>> > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do
>>>>next.
>>>> >
>>>> > -Alex
>>>> >
>>>> > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is
>>>>code
>>>> >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than
>>>>5.0.0
>>>> >> by doing:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex
>>>>5.0.0
>>>> to
>>>> >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we
>>>>really
>>>> >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an
>>>>instance of
>>>> >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> init(..., ...,
>>>> >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new
>>>>Version(4,0,0));
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get
>>>>updated
>>>> >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to
>>>>go
>>>> in
>>>> >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -Alex
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
>>>> means
>>>> >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my
>>>>latest
>>>> >>>> update on the 3 issues:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small
>>>>population of
>>>> >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who
>>>>took
>>>> the
>>>> >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>>>> >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB
>>>>team.
>>>> And
>>>> >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause.
>>>> If
>>>> we
>>>> >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in
>>>>the
>>>> >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But
>>>>maybe
>>>> >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more
>>>>information.
>>>> >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop
>>>>using
>>>> >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
>>>> really
>>>> >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
>>>> think
>>>> >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to
>>>>revert the
>>>> >>>> change to ListCollectionView.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and
>>>>#3,
>>>> and
>>>> >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> -Alex
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
>>>> >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release
>>>>something
>>>> >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
>>>> something
>>>> >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to
>>>>several of
>>>> >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we
>>>>should
>>>> >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1)
>>>>Does
>>>> the
>>>> >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>>>> >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the
>>>>binary
>>>> >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
>>>> manual
>>>> >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top
>>>>IDEs:
>>>> >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC
>>>>versions
>>>> >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting
>>>>on an
>>>> >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
>>>> patching &
>>>> >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
>>>> creating a
>>>> >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level -
>>>>make it
>>>> >>> simple (which is difficult to do).
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ix Multimedia Software
>>
>>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>>3521 VB Utrecht
>>
>>T. 06-51952295
>>I. www.ixsoftware.nl
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
OK, my bad on the folder name. Updated the readme.
Anybody know what permission I would have to change to allow the jar to be
downloaded?
On 7/29/13 11:57 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>Same here:
>
>Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be
>"eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
>
>???
>
>EdB
>
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
><bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try
>>again or
>> contact the server administrator."
>>
>> Also, the folder in my FB installation
>> is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>
>> This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Om
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
>>> permission..
>>> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>> But on my machine it is:
>>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>>> Hoofdstraat 160
>>> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>>>
>>> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> > Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
>>> >
>>> > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get
>>>around
>>> > this problem.
>>> >
>>> > The patched jar and a readme is up on
>>> > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
>>> >
>>> > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only
>>>work
>>> > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do
>>>next.
>>> >
>>> > -Alex
>>> >
>>> > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is
>>>code
>>> >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than
>>>5.0.0
>>> >> by doing:
>>> >>
>>> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
>>> >>
>>> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex
>>>5.0.0
>>> to
>>> >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we
>>>really
>>> >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an
>>>instance of
>>> >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
>>> >>
>>> >> init(..., ...,
>>> >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new
>>>Version(4,0,0));
>>> >>
>>> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get
>>>updated
>>> >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to
>>>go
>>> in
>>> >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Alex
>>> >>
>>> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
>>> means
>>> >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
>>> >>>> update on the 3 issues:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small
>>>population of
>>> >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who
>>>took
>>> the
>>> >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>>> >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team.
>>> And
>>> >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause.
>>> If
>>> we
>>> >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in
>>>the
>>> >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But
>>>maybe
>>> >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
>>> >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
>>> >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
>>> really
>>> >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
>>> think
>>> >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to
>>>revert the
>>> >>>> change to ListCollectionView.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and
>>>#3,
>>> and
>>> >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> -Alex
>>> >>>
>>> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
>>> >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release
>>>something
>>> >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
>>> something
>>> >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to
>>>several of
>>> >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we
>>>should
>>> >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1)
>>>Does
>>> the
>>> >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>>> >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the
>>>binary
>>> >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
>>> manual
>>> >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top
>>>IDEs:
>>> >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC
>>>versions
>>> >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting
>>>on an
>>> >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
>>> patching &
>>> >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
>>> creating a
>>> >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level -
>>>make it
>>> >>> simple (which is difficult to do).
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>--
>Ix Multimedia Software
>
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Same here:
Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be
"eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
???
EdB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
<bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try again or
> contact the server administrator."
>
> Also, the folder in my FB installation
> is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>
> This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
>
>> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
>> permission..
>> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>> But on my machine it is:
>> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
>> Hoofdstraat 160
>> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>>
>> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> > Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
>> >
>> > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get around
>> > this problem.
>> >
>> > The patched jar and a readme is up on
>> > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
>> >
>> > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
>> > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next.
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
>> >>
>> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code
>> >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0
>> >> by doing:
>> >>
>> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
>> >>
>> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0
>> to
>> >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really
>> >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
>> >>
>> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of
>> >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
>> >>
>> >> init(..., ...,
>> >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0));
>> >>
>> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated
>> >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go
>> in
>> >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
>> >>
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
>> means
>> >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
>> >>>> update on the 3 issues:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of
>> >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took
>> the
>> >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>> >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team.
>> And
>> >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If
>> we
>> >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the
>> >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe
>> >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
>> >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
>> >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
>> really
>> >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
>> think
>> >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the
>> >>>> change to ListCollectionView.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3,
>> and
>> >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Alex
>> >>>
>> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
>> >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something
>> >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
>> something
>> >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of
>> >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should
>> >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does
>> the
>> >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>> >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
>> >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
>> manual
>> >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
>> >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>> >>>
>> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions
>> >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an
>> >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
>> patching &
>> >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
>> creating a
>> >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it
>> >>> simple (which is difficult to do).
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try again or
contact the server administrator."
Also, the folder in my FB installation
is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit
Thanks,
Om
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl> wrote:
> I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no
> permission..
> Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is:
> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
> But on my machine it is:
> eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
>
> Regards,
>
> SWEN VAN ZANTEN
> Hoofdstraat 160
> 2171 BL, Sassenheim
>
> Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> > Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
> >
> > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get around
> > this problem.
> >
> > The patched jar and a readme is up on
> > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
> >
> > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
> > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
> >>
> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code
> >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0
> >> by doing:
> >>
> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
> >>
> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0
> to
> >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really
> >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
> >>
> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of
> >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
> >>
> >> init(..., ...,
> >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0));
> >>
> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated
> >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go
> in
> >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
> >>
> >>
> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which
> means
> >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
> >>>> update on the 3 issues:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of
> >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took
> the
> >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
> >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team.
> And
> >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If
> we
> >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the
> >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe
> >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
> >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
> >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we
> really
> >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I
> think
> >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the
> >>>> change to ListCollectionView.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3,
> and
> >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Alex
> >>>
> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
> >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something
> >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing
> something
> >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of
> >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should
> >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does
> the
> >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
> >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
> >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the
> manual
> >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
> >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
> >>>
> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions
> >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an
> >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the
> patching &
> >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is
> creating a
> >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it
> >>> simple (which is difficult to do).
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Swen van Zanten <fl...@hdsign.nl>.
I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no permission..
Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is: eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
But on my machine it is: eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
Regards,
SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstraat 160
2171 BL, Sassenheim
Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> het volgende geschreven:
> Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
>
> I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get around
> this problem.
>
> The patched jar and a readme is up on
> http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
>
> Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
> with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
>>
>> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code
>> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0
>> by doing:
>>
>> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
>>
>> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0 to
>> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really
>> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
>>
>> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of
>> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
>>
>> init(..., ...,
>> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0));
>>
>> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated
>> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go in
>> an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
>>
>>
>> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means
>>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
>>>> update on the 3 issues:
>>>>
>>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of
>>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took the
>>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team. And
>>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If we
>>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the
>>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe
>>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
>>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
>>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we really
>>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I think
>>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the
>>>> change to ListCollectionView.
>>>>
>>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3, and
>>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> To release or not to release - that is the question....
>>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something
>>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing something
>>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of
>>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should
>>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does the
>>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
>>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the manual
>>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
>>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>>>
>>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions
>>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an
>>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the patching &
>>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is creating a
>>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it
>>> simple (which is difficult to do).
>>
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/30/13 12:09 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks for digging into this issue and finding a solution.
>My thoughts/concerns on this:
>
> - It is really up to Adobe to figure out if they want to honor their
> user base's desire to continue using FB 4.6. DV does not work with
>Apache
> Flex in any case.
> - Will the fix for FB 4.7 work with future releases of Apache Flex
> (4.11, 5.0.0, 5.0.5, etc.) ? Is this something we can easily test
>today?
I bumped the upper limit from 5 to 100. I figure if we get to version 100
in Apache Flex we'll either be so popular that Adobe will be interested in
cranking out new releases of FB, or FB will have been left behind by the
community in favor of some other tool vendors. In theory you can test by
editing flex-sdk-description.xml
> - Any chance the fix be released as a patch to FB 4.7 instead of you
> having to host the .jar file somewhere? Maintaining a tool for this
>would
> be too cumbersome.
I'm waiting to find that out, but I'd say the odds are slim. Naturally,
the less work we want it to be for our customers, the more work Adobe has
to do. I think the options are things like:
1) Adobe creates new binaries for FB 4.7 and Adobe Auto Updater pushes the
fix
2) Adobe releases some tool that updates your FB 4.7 installation.
3) Adobe posts the patched JAR on some FB page on www.adobe.com with
instructions
4) Adobe gives me permission to post the JAR on my blog.
There are other factors like how much testing and support Adobe will
commit to.
I honestly don't know where we'll end up.
-Alex
>
>Thanks,
>Om
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/13 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >Can you give us odds on how likely that "if ever" is? If it's likely
>> >that Adobe will release this as a fix, I'd be willing to release the
>> >SDK in expectation of that event. If not, I'll keep pushing for a
>> >solution we can create and distribute ourselves.
>> I think either I or Adobe will publish something for Flash Builder 4.7.
>> I'm still waiting to find out how long that will take and how it will
>>get
>> published. Now that the JAR has been tested and known to work, I've
>> removed it from my people.a.o folder since that isn't an allowed
>> deployment method.
>>
>> FlashBuilder 4.6 is another story. Is this really critical? It will
>>be a
>> pain for me to resurrect the source and propose the patch, and even more
>> painful to try to convince folks at Adobe that there is a business
>> justification for getting it published. I know folks are still running
>> 4.6 to try to get Design View to work, but I was hoping they also had
>>4.7
>> installed and can create new projects in 4.7. Remember, Adobe has
>>stated
>> that only FB 4.7 supports Apache Flex.
>>
>> So, my current position is that it is time to cut another RC and vote on
>> it. All other issues have been addressed. I'm pretty sure FB 4.7 users
>> will be able to fix their installations sooner rather than later. But
>>it
>> depends on how critical folks think a fix for FB 4.6 is.
>>
>> We also have to consider whether having folks replace a JAR is easy
>>enough
>> for the folks who are new to Flex and most likely to run into this
>>issue.
>> Should we be thinking about a utility that finds FB and updates it?
>>
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for digging into this issue and finding a solution.
My thoughts/concerns on this:
- It is really up to Adobe to figure out if they want to honor their
user base's desire to continue using FB 4.6. DV does not work with Apache
Flex in any case.
- Will the fix for FB 4.7 work with future releases of Apache Flex
(4.11, 5.0.0, 5.0.5, etc.) ? Is this something we can easily test today?
- Any chance the fix be released as a patch to FB 4.7 instead of you
having to host the .jar file somewhere? Maintaining a tool for this would
be too cumbersome.
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/13 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
> >Can you give us odds on how likely that "if ever" is? If it's likely
> >that Adobe will release this as a fix, I'd be willing to release the
> >SDK in expectation of that event. If not, I'll keep pushing for a
> >solution we can create and distribute ourselves.
> I think either I or Adobe will publish something for Flash Builder 4.7.
> I'm still waiting to find out how long that will take and how it will get
> published. Now that the JAR has been tested and known to work, I've
> removed it from my people.a.o folder since that isn't an allowed
> deployment method.
>
> FlashBuilder 4.6 is another story. Is this really critical? It will be a
> pain for me to resurrect the source and propose the patch, and even more
> painful to try to convince folks at Adobe that there is a business
> justification for getting it published. I know folks are still running
> 4.6 to try to get Design View to work, but I was hoping they also had 4.7
> installed and can create new projects in 4.7. Remember, Adobe has stated
> that only FB 4.7 supports Apache Flex.
>
> So, my current position is that it is time to cut another RC and vote on
> it. All other issues have been addressed. I'm pretty sure FB 4.7 users
> will be able to fix their installations sooner rather than later. But it
> depends on how critical folks think a fix for FB 4.6 is.
>
> We also have to consider whether having folks replace a JAR is easy enough
> for the folks who are new to Flex and most likely to run into this issue.
> Should we be thinking about a utility that finds FB and updates it?
>
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I don't think 4.6 is all that important. If we fix 4.7, the latest
> versions of the SDK and Flash Builder are good to go.
Good we have a solution for 4.7 but given that this is really a perception issue (the actual problem has a very simple workaround ie edit and fix the generated code) and I'm reasonable sure the user base for 4.6 is still large we probably need a solution for both.
Do we have a time frame yet when we can consider the next RC? When do we consider this issue "solved"?
Justin
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Paul Hastings <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 8/1/2013 2:47 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote:
> As time marches on, this method of "fixing" DV will become more and more
its looking more & more like 4.9.1 was the last SDK version where that "trick"
worked. 4.10.0 RC3 shows black/grey screen instead of the DV no matter how many
times i stand FB on its head. C'est la vie.
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com>.
Om,
No blog post. A google plus user posted that tid bit on the Apache Flex
Community page (
https://plus.google.com/104408486838026884935/posts/17vGFEevkZM). I don't
know of any side affects yet, as i haven't moved off of Flex 4.6 yet. But
when i do (planning for this next dev cycle to move to Flex 4.10) i'll put
up some updates to the group, and maybe even write up a blog about it :)
Just don't have enough detail to warrant one now
Chris
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>wrote:
> As time marches on, this method of "fixing" DV will become more and more
> broken. FP version changes and SDK changes will not be realized and will
> cause issues -- from crashes to bad code. I've already run across some
> major issues trying to use the new DataGrid with the hacked DV setup...
> The time to start investigating your workflow is now...
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
> <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > It is really up to Adobe to figure out if they want to honor their
> > > > user base's desire to continue using FB 4.6. DV does not work with
> > > Apache
> > > > Flex in any case.
> > >
> > > Om,
> > >
> > > Just a heads up, Design View does work with Apache Flex 4.9.1. But you
> > > have to modify the sdk's flex-sdk-description.xml file by changing the
> > > value in the version tag to read 4.6.0. Then design view will fire
> right
> > > up.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks for the note! I learnt that nugget in this thread. Is this
> > document somewhere on a blog post, etc.? If not I will add a note about
> > this on our wiki. Any known side effects of doing this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Om
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/30/13 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > >> It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work.
> > > > >So 4*100+10*10 + 0 == 500 is going to be treated the same as 5.0.0
> > > (5*100
> > > > >+ 0 + 0 = 500), 4.10.1 (say we need to patch it) = 501 which will
> end
> > up
> > > > >with a higher version than than 5.0.0.
> > > > I didn't see any compares like that in the code I saw, but there
> could
> > be
> > > > elsewhere.
> > > >
> > > > >100% sure this is just not going to cause more issues down the
> track?
> > > > Nope, but it is relatively safe. Basically the class I changed has 3
> > > > values, current, min and max. I'm just changing the max value from 5
> > to
> > > > 100. I don't think a max value would get used for version against
> > > version
> > > > compares.
> > > >
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Nicholas Kwiatkowski <ni...@spoon.as>.
As time marches on, this method of "fixing" DV will become more and more
broken. FP version changes and SDK changes will not be realized and will
cause issues -- from crashes to bad code. I've already run across some
major issues trying to use the new DataGrid with the hacked DV setup...
The time to start investigating your workflow is now...
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala
<bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It is really up to Adobe to figure out if they want to honor their
> > > user base's desire to continue using FB 4.6. DV does not work with
> > Apache
> > > Flex in any case.
> >
> > Om,
> >
> > Just a heads up, Design View does work with Apache Flex 4.9.1. But you
> > have to modify the sdk's flex-sdk-description.xml file by changing the
> > value in the version tag to read 4.6.0. Then design view will fire right
> > up.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> Thanks for the note! I learnt that nugget in this thread. Is this
> document somewhere on a blog post, etc.? If not I will add a note about
> this on our wiki. Any known side effects of doing this?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/30/13 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >> It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work.
> > > >So 4*100+10*10 + 0 == 500 is going to be treated the same as 5.0.0
> > (5*100
> > > >+ 0 + 0 = 500), 4.10.1 (say we need to patch it) = 501 which will end
> up
> > > >with a higher version than than 5.0.0.
> > > I didn't see any compares like that in the code I saw, but there could
> be
> > > elsewhere.
> > >
> > > >100% sure this is just not going to cause more issues down the track?
> > > Nope, but it is relatively safe. Basically the class I changed has 3
> > > values, current, min and max. I'm just changing the max value from 5
> to
> > > 100. I don't think a max value would get used for version against
> > version
> > > compares.
> > >
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Paul Hastings <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 7/31/2013 11:59 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the note! I learnt that nugget in this thread. Is this
> document somewhere on a blog post, etc.? If not I will add a note about
> this on our wiki. Any known side effects of doing this?
there must be some magic sauce that i missed sprinkling on FB, as that trick
doesn't work w/4.10.0 for me.
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is really up to Adobe to figure out if they want to honor their
> > user base's desire to continue using FB 4.6. DV does not work with
> Apache
> > Flex in any case.
>
> Om,
>
> Just a heads up, Design View does work with Apache Flex 4.9.1. But you
> have to modify the sdk's flex-sdk-description.xml file by changing the
> value in the version tag to read 4.6.0. Then design view will fire right
> up.
>
> Chris
>
>
Thanks for the note! I learnt that nugget in this thread. Is this
document somewhere on a blog post, etc.? If not I will add a note about
this on our wiki. Any known side effects of doing this?
Thanks,
Om
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 7/30/13 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >> It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work.
> > >So 4*100+10*10 + 0 == 500 is going to be treated the same as 5.0.0
> (5*100
> > >+ 0 + 0 = 500), 4.10.1 (say we need to patch it) = 501 which will end up
> > >with a higher version than than 5.0.0.
> > I didn't see any compares like that in the code I saw, but there could be
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > >100% sure this is just not going to cause more issues down the track?
> > Nope, but it is relatively safe. Basically the class I changed has 3
> > values, current, min and max. I'm just changing the max value from 5 to
> > 100. I don't think a max value would get used for version against
> version
> > compares.
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com>.
> It is really up to Adobe to figure out if they want to honor their
> user base's desire to continue using FB 4.6. DV does not work with
Apache
> Flex in any case.
Om,
Just a heads up, Design View does work with Apache Flex 4.9.1. But you
have to modify the sdk's flex-sdk-description.xml file by changing the
value in the version tag to read 4.6.0. Then design view will fire right
up.
Chris
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/13 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work.
> >So 4*100+10*10 + 0 == 500 is going to be treated the same as 5.0.0 (5*100
> >+ 0 + 0 = 500), 4.10.1 (say we need to patch it) = 501 which will end up
> >with a higher version than than 5.0.0.
> I didn't see any compares like that in the code I saw, but there could be
> elsewhere.
>
> >100% sure this is just not going to cause more issues down the track?
> Nope, but it is relatively safe. Basically the class I changed has 3
> values, current, min and max. I'm just changing the max value from 5 to
> 100. I don't think a max value would get used for version against version
> compares.
>
> -Alex
>
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/30/13 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work.
>So 4*100+10*10 + 0 == 500 is going to be treated the same as 5.0.0 (5*100
>+ 0 + 0 = 500), 4.10.1 (say we need to patch it) = 501 which will end up
>with a higher version than than 5.0.0.
I didn't see any compares like that in the code I saw, but there could be
elsewhere.
>100% sure this is just not going to cause more issues down the track?
Nope, but it is relatively safe. Basically the class I changed has 3
values, current, min and max. I'm just changing the max value from 5 to
100. I don't think a max value would get used for version against version
compares.
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work.
So 4*100+10*10 + 0 == 500 is going to be treated the same as 5.0.0 (5*100 + 0 + 0 = 500), 4.10.1 (say we need to patch it) = 501 which will end up with a higher version than than 5.0.0. 100% sure this is just not going to cause more issues down the track?
Justin
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/30/13 4:23 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Also even with that patch to FB we would still have to change the RC
>version number form 4.10.0 to something else right for it to work in a
>patched version of FB? It sill using major*100+minor*10 to compare
>versions right?
It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work. I
basically upped the maximum version to 100 (from 5). That's a lot of
releases from now and by that time we'll either have Adobe interested in
more FB release, created our own eclipse plug-ins and/or FB will be a
non-factor for various reasons.
I think we're ready to release as 4.10.0. Do you still want to try for a
4.6 workaround? I think that's going to be a hard thing to make happen.
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Also even with that patch to FB we would still have to change the RC version number form 4.10.0 to something else right for it to work in a patched version of FB? It sill using major*100+minor*10 to compare versions right?
Justin
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I don't think 4.6 is all that important. If we fix 4.7, the latest
versions of the SDK and Flash Builder are good to go. Everyone else
needs to update or live with the workaround.
EdB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/30/13 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>
>>Can you give us odds on how likely that "if ever" is? If it's likely
>>that Adobe will release this as a fix, I'd be willing to release the
>>SDK in expectation of that event. If not, I'll keep pushing for a
>>solution we can create and distribute ourselves.
> I think either I or Adobe will publish something for Flash Builder 4.7.
> I'm still waiting to find out how long that will take and how it will get
> published. Now that the JAR has been tested and known to work, I've
> removed it from my people.a.o folder since that isn't an allowed
> deployment method.
>
> FlashBuilder 4.6 is another story. Is this really critical? It will be a
> pain for me to resurrect the source and propose the patch, and even more
> painful to try to convince folks at Adobe that there is a business
> justification for getting it published. I know folks are still running
> 4.6 to try to get Design View to work, but I was hoping they also had 4.7
> installed and can create new projects in 4.7. Remember, Adobe has stated
> that only FB 4.7 supports Apache Flex.
>
> So, my current position is that it is time to cut another RC and vote on
> it. All other issues have been addressed. I'm pretty sure FB 4.7 users
> will be able to fix their installations sooner rather than later. But it
> depends on how critical folks think a fix for FB 4.6 is.
>
> We also have to consider whether having folks replace a JAR is easy enough
> for the folks who are new to Flex and most likely to run into this issue.
> Should we be thinking about a utility that finds FB and updates it?
>
>
> -Alex
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/30/13 11:35 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <er...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>Can you give us odds on how likely that "if ever" is? If it's likely
>that Adobe will release this as a fix, I'd be willing to release the
>SDK in expectation of that event. If not, I'll keep pushing for a
>solution we can create and distribute ourselves.
I think either I or Adobe will publish something for Flash Builder 4.7.
I'm still waiting to find out how long that will take and how it will get
published. Now that the JAR has been tested and known to work, I've
removed it from my people.a.o folder since that isn't an allowed
deployment method.
FlashBuilder 4.6 is another story. Is this really critical? It will be a
pain for me to resurrect the source and propose the patch, and even more
painful to try to convince folks at Adobe that there is a business
justification for getting it published. I know folks are still running
4.6 to try to get Design View to work, but I was hoping they also had 4.7
installed and can create new projects in 4.7. Remember, Adobe has stated
that only FB 4.7 supports Apache Flex.
So, my current position is that it is time to cut another RC and vote on
it. All other issues have been addressed. I'm pretty sure FB 4.7 users
will be able to fix their installations sooner rather than later. But it
depends on how critical folks think a fix for FB 4.6 is.
We also have to consider whether having folks replace a JAR is easy enough
for the folks who are new to Flex and most likely to run into this issue.
Should we be thinking about a utility that finds FB and updates it?
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
Can you give us odds on how likely that "if ever" is? If it's likely
that Adobe will release this as a fix, I'd be willing to release the
SDK in expectation of that event. If not, I'll keep pushing for a
solution we can create and distribute ourselves.
Thanks,
EdB
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/29/13 11:48 PM, "Paul Hastings" <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>just in case you don't already know, this issue shows up in FB4.6 & SDK
>>4.10.0
>>as well.
> Yes, I'm aware, but it is a bundle of work to try to fix up 4.6 and I'm
> not sure how well that will go over with Adobe management since only 4.7
> "officially supports" Apache Flex.
>
> It may have to wait until after 360|Stack if ever.
>
> -Alex
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/29/13 11:48 PM, "Paul Hastings" <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>just in case you don't already know, this issue shows up in FB4.6 & SDK
>4.10.0
>as well.
Yes, I'm aware, but it is a bundle of work to try to fix up 4.6 and I'm
not sure how well that will go over with Adobe management since only 4.7
"officially supports" Apache Flex.
It may have to wait until after 360|Stack if ever.
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Paul Hastings <pa...@gmail.com>.
On 7/30/2013 1:04 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
> with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next.
just in case you don't already know, this issue shows up in FB4.6 & SDK 4.10.0
as well.
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Even later update on the "New Project" issue:
I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get around
this problem.
The patched jar and a readme is up on
http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/
Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work
with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next.
-Alex
On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
>
>I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code
>for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0
>by doing:
>
> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
>
>This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0 to
>get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really
>mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
>
>There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of
>org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
>
> init(..., ...,
> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0));
>
>It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated
>when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go in
>an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
>
>
>I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
>
>-Alex
>
>On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
>
>>>I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means
>>>we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
>>>update on the 3 issues:
>>>
>>>1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of
>>>the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took the
>>>time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>>>2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team. And
>>>I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If we
>>>cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the
>>>>kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe
>>>>by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
>>>3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
>>>DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we really
>>>don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I think
>>>we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the
>>>change to ListCollectionView.
>>>
>>>So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3, and
>>>maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>>>
>>>-Alex
>>
>>To release or not to release - that is the question....
>>+1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something
>>that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing something
>>that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of
>>the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should
>>have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does the
>>SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>>installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
>>distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the manual
>>builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
>>IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>>
>>My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions
>>are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an
>>them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the patching &
>>work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is creating a
>>feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it
>>simple (which is difficult to do).
>
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Latest update on the "New Project" issue:
I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code
for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0
by doing:
major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro
This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0 to
get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really
mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again.
There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of
org.osgi.Framework.Version like this:
init(..., ...,
new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0));
It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated
when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go in
an change that 5 to something larger somehow.
I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe.
-Alex
On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote:
>>I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means
>>we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest
>>update on the 3 issues:
>>
>>1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of
>>the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took the
>>time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>>2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team. And
>>I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If we
>>cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the
>>>kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe
>>>by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
>>3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
>>DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we really
>>don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I think
>>we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the
>>change to ListCollectionView.
>>
>>So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3, and
>>maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>>
>>-Alex
>
>To release or not to release - that is the question....
>+1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something
>that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing something
>that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of
>the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should
>have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does the
>SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR
>installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary
>distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the manual
>builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs:
>IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
>
>My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions
>are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an
>them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the patching &
>work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is creating a
>feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it
>simple (which is difficult to do).
RE: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Scott Guthmann <sc...@on3solutions.com>.
>I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest update on the 3 issues:
>
>1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took the time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
>2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team. And I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If we cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the >kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
>3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we really don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I think we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the change to ListCollectionView.
>
>So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3, and maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
>
>-Alex
To release or not to release - that is the question....
+1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing something that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does the SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the manual builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs: IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT?
My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the patching & work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is creating a feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it simple (which is difficult to do).
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
+1 on the fix and reverting. Thank you Alex for figuring those out.
I think we should actively prevent the 'New Project' issue from
occurring. All we need to do is change the version number to something
with only single digits. That really couldn't be simpler, could it?
5.0 has my vote.
This is not something people will be able to overlook. It is not an
obscure RTE in a feature few use, will happen each time they create a
new project. Doing nothing but adding a note in the docs will leave a
bad impression and will taint this release and - more importantly -
the still fragile image of the project. People, especially the press
and bloggers, tend to look at the negatives, no matter how awesome the
rest is.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/13 9:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>> What day do you get in the airplane?
>>Thursday your time.
> OK, do we have consensus on taking both the resource module fix and
> reverting Ilist?
> If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
> after Europe has had a chance to weigh in on this thread.
>
> Then we have to work out wording for whatever to say about the "New
> Project" issue and put that in the release notes. I'm thinking we should
> should put in something generic that points to our wiki for the "latest
> news". That way if we get a patch from Adobe we can update just the wiki.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Erik de Bruin <er...@ixsoftware.nl>.
I'd say 'release' AND 'develop', that way the fixes will be run
through Mustella and the build machine as well as made part of the
release. The 'release' branch doesn't get automatically tested or
build.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/13 10:50 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
>>> after Europe has had a chance to weigh in on this thread.
>>Why not check in so people can review? That how the system works, commit
>>then review.
> I was hoping there would be consensus on which branch (develop or
> release). Are you ok if I check into release4.10?
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/28/13 10:50 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>>If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
>> after Europe has had a chance to weigh in on this thread.
>Why not check in so people can review? That how the system works, commit
>then review.
I was hoping there would be consensus on which branch (develop or
release). Are you ok if I check into release4.10?
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> OK, do we have consensus on taking both the resource module fix and
> reverting Ilist?
I'm not sure enough people have expressed an option on either issue for consensus to be reached.
> If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
> after Europe has had a chance to weigh in on this thread.
Why not check in so people can review? That how the system works, commit then review.
Justin
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/28/13 9:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> What day do you get in the airplane?
>Thursday your time.
OK, do we have consensus on taking both the resource module fix and
reverting Ilist?
If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
after Europe has had a chance to weigh in on this thread.
Then we have to work out wording for whatever to say about the "New
Project" issue and put that in the release notes. I'm thinking we should
should put in something generic that points to our wiki for the "latest
news". That way if we get a patch from Adobe we can update just the wiki.
Thoughts?
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> What day do you get in the airplane?
Thursday your time.
Justin
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/28/13 9:15 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means
>>we
>> have a few more days before we would release.
>
>2 day + 3 days (to vote) = 5 day minimum when means a minimal of over a
>week since the vote passed. Do you really think we should delay that long?
Yes, folks on the mailing list are complaining of #1 and #3. I think it
would be bad PR to release with these issues.
>
>Just we aware that will overlap travel plans and 360 stack so there may
>be a further delays.
What day do you get in the airplane? We might have enough time to get
this out before 360|Stack starts.
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means we
> have a few more days before we would release.
2 day + 3 days (to vote) = 5 day minimum when means a minimal of over a week since the vote passed. Do you really think we should delay that long?
Just we aware that will overlap travel plans and 360 stack so there may be a further delays.
Justin
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 7/28/13 7:57 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I really think that it is not fair for us to delay the release just
>because
>of this FB bug.
I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means we
have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest update on
the 3 issues:
1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of the
total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took the time
to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go.
2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team. And
I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If we
cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the kits
themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe by the
time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information.
3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using
DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we really
don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I think we
should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the change
to ListCollectionView.
So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3, and
maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time.
-Alex
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 28, 2013 7:37 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Hi Justin, what say Adobe about this?
> Been no official response from Adobe but I wouldn't really expect one, we
have to submit a bug in there bug base and it may or may not get fixed at
some time in the future. I can't see them fixing it and releasing a patch
in under a month. Pure speculation happy to be proven wrong there. When was
the last update/patch to Flash builder released by Adobe?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
I vote for releasing as 4.10 and adding a big note in our README and
website about this issue. So far, the workaround seems to be very simple -
just delete the offending attribute (layout='absolute') and get going. We
can also add a technote instructing FB users to change the version in
flex-sdk-description.xml to get rid of this problem.
We can file a bug with Adobe and see when they would fix the issue. There
is a reasonable chance that they would fix this issue sooner than later.
I really think that it is not fair for us to delay the release just because
of this FB bug.
Thanks,
Om
Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Hi Justin, what say Adobe about this?
Been no official response from Adobe but I wouldn't really expect one, we have to submit a bug in there bug base and it may or may not get fixed at some time in the future. I can't see them fixing it and releasing a patch in under a month. Pure speculation happy to be proven wrong there. When was the last update/patch to Flash builder released by Adobe?
Thanks,
Justin
RE: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Posted by FRANKLIN GARZON <fg...@hotmail.com>.
Hi Justin, what say Adobe about this?
Franklin Garzón
Regional Development Manager
MCITP Microsoft SQLServer
*Si el hombre dejara de aprender entonces dejaría de existir*
094496862
> From: justin@classsoftware.com
> Subject: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:19:45 +1000
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Hi,
>
> So far the only consensus (from those who have been vocal) is not to release the voted on RC3 but:
> - We don't seem to have a solution the the Flash Builder version issue other than changing version number to single digits.
> - The code for the release module issues hasn't been checked in.
>
> Are there any other issues outstanding? Someone mentioned a FDT issue but I'm not 100% what can be done there either.
>
> If we change the version (to 4.9.5 say), we'll need to change READMEs/RELEASE_NOTES, JIRA tags, Version.as files, announcement/press release and probably a few other things.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin