flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Martin <windo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
Date Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:11:05 GMT
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 <nicholas@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
> <bigosmallm@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chris Martin <windowns@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 <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7/30/13 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message