flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Taylor <ja...@dedoose.com>
Subject RE: Next Flex SDK release
Date Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:23:52 GMT
nvm, saw your notes, didn't realize 4.9 was that fast!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Taylor [mailto:jason@dedoose.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 3:22 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: RE: Next Flex SDK release

Harbs, Flex SDK 13.0 was the last release where TLF worked correctly without major performance
issues.  I know because we are still stuck on that release due to this bug. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 7:06 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next Flex SDK release

It looks like I don't need 4.6. There's a 3.0 branch in the Git repo which seems to have ti
working correctly.

On Dec 7, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK. I'm working on this, and I just added a comment to the JIRA with my preliminary observations.
Kind of interesting...
> 
> I'm going to need to find the source of the old TLF to compare. I don't want to use 4.9.1
because that code just had a band-aid. I assume Adobe's 4.6 code was working correctly.
> 
> I'm downloading 4.6 now from Adobe's site. Hopefully I'll be able to 
> use and build that...
> 
> If anyone has any thoughts to help me on this, I'd appreciate it! ;-)
> 
> Harbs
> 
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> You had created such a flag, but enabling it causes lots of RTEs with the current
code.
>> 
>> I'd rather find the underlying cause of the problem which seems to be way too much
recursion.
>> 
>> I will try to take another look at this issue next week.
>> 
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2) TLF Performance
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34769
>>> 
>>> I'd like to get an update from Harbs.  I haven't spent any serious 
>>> thinking on the issue, but my recollection is that there is some 
>>> snippet of code we could disable or enable with a flag so folks can 
>>> get old behavior back if they don't need whatever that new behavior 
>>> was meant to solve (which I think may have been related to table support).
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message