Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
From: Jason Taylor <jason@dedoose.com>
To: "dev@flex.apache.org" <dev@flex.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Next Flex SDK release
Thread-Topic: Next Flex SDK release
Thread-Index: AQHRMPHqgnR/khjwvUKld5RMZAUQA57ABCSAgANKiWA=
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 23:22:24 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <3B3852E122320F4CA9F2A2688F34E361AEC3DD90@ORD2MBX01D.mex05.mlsrvr.com>
References: <FC110D2C-ADC2-40CC-BD8C-CE97CF3E3A21@classsoftware.com>
 <D2714F8C.5C1CF%aharui@adobe.com>
 <9A16AE9A-9880-4AF9-BB05-B192C906ECE0@gmail.com>
 <68BEFF57-D770-471E-9DB1-80D8060A7CDF@gmail.com>
 <B28B3720-38BC-43CF-AB67-7186D1A8A7B2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B28B3720-38BC-43CF-AB67-7186D1A8A7B2@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Harbs, Flex SDK 13.0 was the last release where TLF worked correctly withou=
t major performance issues.  I know because we are still stuck on that rele=
ase due to this bug.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.lists@gmail.com]=20
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 p=
reliminary observations. Kind of interesting...
>=20
> I'm going to need to find the source of the old TLF to compare. I don't w=
ant to use 4.9.1 because that code just had a band-aid. I assume Adobe's 4.=
6 code was working correctly.
>=20
> I'm downloading 4.6 now from Adobe's site. Hopefully I'll be able to=20
> use and build that...
>=20
> If anyone has any thoughts to help me on this, I'd appreciate it! ;-)
>=20
> Harbs
>=20
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
>> You had created such a flag, but enabling it causes lots of RTEs with th=
e current code.
>>=20
>> I'd rather find the underlying cause of the problem which seems to be wa=
y too much recursion.
>>=20
>> I will try to take another look at this issue next week.
>>=20
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> 2) TLF Performance
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34769
>>>=20
>>> I'd like to get an update from Harbs.  I haven't spent any serious=20
>>> thinking on the issue, but my recollection is that there is some=20
>>> snippet of code we could disable or enable with a flag so folks can=20
>>> get old behavior back if they don't need whatever that new behavior=20
>>> was meant to solve (which I think may have been related to table suppor=
t).
>>=20
>=20