flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named exactly this way?
Date Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:15:47 GMT
Well I'll do a little exploration ... 

But as you posted in one of your last posts, it looks as if this is comming from some flex2
compiler. 

Could It be possible that the problems of hard-coded names would only affect Flex 2 Applications
built with Apache Flex? I mean 3.7.1 seems to have been released on 04. Jun 2010 at this time
a first Flex 4 release has been out and I remember most people doing Flex 3  and a lot of
people still doing Flex 2 development, Flex 4 was only done by the "Early Adopters" ;-)

Chris

________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <alexander.doroshko@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:58
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having to be named
exactly this way?

On 02.06.2014 12:41, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Well I am currently experimenting with the Flexmojos Build, but it seems the compiler
is producing swfs and swcs correctly even if playerglobal is called playerglobal-13.0.swc
...
Marvin thought so too with Flexmojos 3.7 release and had to release
3.7.1 update in few days :) See [1] for details. I don't have a sample
to reproduce that problem, but probably user description will be enough.
> If there are parts in the SDK that have this hard-coded name, would it be reasonable
to refactor these?
Rhetorical question :) Of course compiler without SWC name assumption is
better. I didn't explore Falcon code, may be the problem is already
solved there. But as for now, most people use legacy compiler.
> I would certainly prefer to omit some maven hacks form the plugin. Especially when thinking
about the plugin rewrite I have setup,
>
> Chris

Alex

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06489.html


Mime
View raw message