Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-flex-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-flex-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C821A18365 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 23:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 98659 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2015 23:23:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-flex-dev-archive@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 98616 invoked by uid 500); 9 Dec 2015 23:23:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 98604 invoked by uid 99); 9 Dec 2015 23:23:56 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 23:23:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id A1C761A41D9 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 23:23:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.632 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.632 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2_xOOcfwhd7M for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 23:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp105.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (smtp105.ord1c.emailsrvr.com [108.166.43.105]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 083D920786 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 23:23:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3C72B803A7 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:23:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp192.mex05.mlsrvr.com (unknown [184.106.31.85]) by smtp6.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 3158A801DE for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:23:53 -0500 (EST) X-Sender-Id: jason@dedoose.com Received: from smtp192.mex05.mlsrvr.com ([UNAVAILABLE]. [184.106.31.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.5.4); Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:23:53 -0500 Received: from ORD2MBX01D.mex05.mlsrvr.com ([fe80::75cf:4044:ec74:dde9]) by ORD2HUB02.mex05.mlsrvr.com ([fe80::1573:68e4:5964:7ca5%20]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:23:52 -0600 From: Jason Taylor To: "dev@flex.apache.org" Subject: RE: Next Flex SDK release Thread-Topic: Next Flex SDK release Thread-Index: AQHRMPHqgnR/khjwvUKld5RMZAUQA57ABCSAgANKiWCAAACjYA== Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 23:23:52 +0000 Message-ID: <3B3852E122320F4CA9F2A2688F34E361AEC3DDA0@ORD2MBX01D.mex05.mlsrvr.com> References: <9A16AE9A-9880-4AF9-BB05-B192C906ECE0@gmail.com> <68BEFF57-D770-471E-9DB1-80D8060A7CDF@gmail.com> <3B3852E122320F4CA9F2A2688F34E361AEC3DD90@ORD2MBX01D.mex05.mlsrvr.com> In-Reply-To: <3B3852E122320F4CA9F2A2688F34E361AEC3DD90@ORD2MBX01D.mex05.mlsrvr.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [108.38.173.242] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 nvm, saw your notes, didn't realize 4.9 was that fast! -----Original Message----- From: Jason Taylor [mailto:jason@dedoose.com]=20 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 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] 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 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 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 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