flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [FALCON] Should Falcon compile older SDKs?
Date Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:12:29 GMT
I think we have consensus on stricter compilation.  But here are two
scenarios that aren't syntax-related.

Erik compiles his AIR app against 4.10 with MXMLC.  Works fine.  Then uses
Falcon and gets a bunch of errors about styles only supported in Spark
theme.  The root cause is that the air-config.xml in every shipping
version of Flex doesn't have a <theme> tag and MXMLC is hard-coded to
assume Spark.   Darrell and I would prefer not to hard-code stuff like
that in Falcon and will change the air-config.xml in 4.11 so if you use
the Falcon/4.11 combination the app compiles cleanly.  If Erik doesn't
want to upgrade to 4.11, he can add a <theme> tag to his SDK's
air-config.xml.  Are we ok with that?

My internal customer's app specifies a long list of locales, including
en_GB.  But they don't have custom resource bundles for en_GB because
MXMLC will swap in the en_US bundle when it can't find a bundle for en_GB.
 When compiling with Falcon there will be a warning that a locale is
missing a bundle.  Then, if you run against 4.10 or earlier, your app
won't run because those versions of the SDK require that all locales have
all of the same bundles, but if you run against 4.11, I'm going to change
the ResourceManager to ignore missing bundles because the lookup mechanism
doesn't need it.  It is ok with a locale missing a bundle and will search
for the next locale that has one.


On 9/17/13 10:57 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <mark.kessler.ctr@usmc.mil>

>Clarifying... I support more strict.  Warnings on simple things or
>corrections if they are affected in our Flex SDK.  Giving the end
>developer a choice between the compilers is a fine option.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kessler CTR Mark J [mailto:mark.kessler.ctr@usmc.mil]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:50 PM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [FALCON] Should Falcon compile older SDKs?
>Well if it's overall improvement, wouldn't it be worth the time to
>correct the issues anyways?
>What is the volume we are talking about?

View raw message