flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Flex 4.10.0 Release Status
Date Sat, 27 Jul 2013 04:20:06 GMT

On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions.  The
>> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
>> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
>But your fix fixes this right?
>> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
>> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
>Possible the more serious issue from a perception view anyway. Although
>it the code could be easily fixed in FB (just the number parsing right?)
>it may be difficult for Adobe to do so and release in a timely manner.
>Changing the version to 4.9.5 or similar just seems a bit silly. If we
>change flex-description but leave the version number at 4.10 we may run
>into other issues with version compatibility checks in the sdk. While I
>don;t think any for 4.9 or 4.10 have been added there are potential
>issues if we do that.
>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>> implementations.
>Do you read the bottom of
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631? There is a workaround.
>"I delete the service from flash builder with all the as files and added
>the service again through the wizard with the same php file.
>Compiled the project and it worked like a charm."
Yeah, and so I asked for more information because that just doesn't make
sense to me, plus even if it does work, we need to find out why so we can
instruct folks who don't have FB.  And then there's all of the other pain
folks have already warned us with their custom Ilists.  I think the better
move is to revert.
>> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in
>> are single digits
>The parsing reg exp pasted in another thread doesn't look to be the issue.
> It contains \\d+ which match for more than one digit. and would parse
>4.10.0 with that expression as "4.10.0", ".10.0" and ".0".
OK, I'll keep looking then.  I haven't tried it myself.  Are folks who are
hitting this using FB 4.7 or FB 4.6?


View raw message