flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: AW: [MENTORS] Binary Files
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 15:44:53 GMT
Ok ... but actually using the default version seems to be the better way. If the originals
are flawed it would be good to file bug-reports with the original project and help them fix
those problems.
If they are simply inconveniancies, I would suggest to implement workarounds ... using patched
jars sort of gives me a really bad feeling. Especially if you could end up in Classloading
version problems since we don't have separate classloaders.

I read in one of the Adobe developer forums that they didn't publish their changes, because
they thought of their code as hackish and crappy ... (It was an official Adobe developer stating
If it's extended features, wouldn't it be better to strip that out into a separate jar-file
or (if that's not possible) to contribute that functionality?

It's just because I'm really traumatized with classloading issues I had in the past because
of patched jar files ;-)


-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Carol Frampton [mailto:cframpto@adobe.com] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012 16:09
An: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: [MENTORS] Binary Files

On 5/31/12 9 :22AM, "christofer.dutz@c-ware.de"
<christofer.dutz@c-ware.de> wrote:

>"Having a similar setup for Flex would be ok IMO: download binaries 
>from trusted sources by default, but allow people to supply their own 
>binaries if they want."
>It would also make the step of mavenizing a SDK release obsolete. I 
>would definitely vote for this (If I'm allowed a vote) ;-) I too would 
>suggest to avoid binary dependencies. The problem is that Adobe patched 
>quite a lot of Jars so substituting them with the default ones doesn't 
>seem possible. And Adobe even stated that they will not publish their 
>changes as the changes are far too ugly to be published.

I believe you are talking about the velocity, batik and xerces changes.
The source of all these changes will be in the Flex src kit so the modified jars are build
as part of the Flex build.

>So mabe it is neccesary to distribute some libs in binary form, but I 
>would assume that it would be better to check if it is actually 
>nessecary to have patched versions at all ... I would assume that these 
>patches were needed because of bugs in the third party modules and are 
>eventually fixed or adobe used them third party libs wrong (Just an assumption).

>From my brief look at the changes it looks like we added some extended functionality which
the devs didn't believe were general purpose enough to be contributed back to Apache.


View raw message