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 143F318478 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 92827 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2015 13:19:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-flex-dev-archive@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 92787 invoked by uid 500); 7 Dec 2015 13:19:33 -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 92774 invoked by uid 99); 7 Dec 2015 13:19:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:19:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id ABD40180AC9 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:19:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.879 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.879 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mz5ekmH8aXR2 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:19:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id F1D3120C70 for ; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:19:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wmec201 with SMTP id c201so165065264wme.0 for ; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 05:19:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=IK9AHWuiI11PSlE9/PO1YWjQik8cguUo1S4rdCesQZY=; b=BEsrpcCbmCGZ/VpG6OMouaD0ht0VqmD0sJvDIpet9c0j6aqB1DitsrRs+pxgQc4v6p 8GS5ZjELDRihd3K3CXLB+gGUoMj1ulsj7CF0rJBePxfr7GiuXQxyGcpGUPCmSGPw3pSG qEgi/mmEEDzTIxK4LeoNyjMA2y9jMfb1T8uj3fb2HbNP2YKf5mFeBCdB47RCvm4cTN0o WlSSAea4HszFKobG+JkmBlLH1/R1aBnyRIZwUeEtCWOhvvRQpLTc299LqKjFnnRecObD GOH5+s9/DAQ1vW8M2/++vOc6l+NSk51oaclM2lRpJdPmKCSylg17KFX+t9IdNFgq8lSE fwCw== X-Received: by 10.194.21.170 with SMTP id w10mr38481190wje.29.1449494370507; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 05:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([185.120.126.56]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m67sm16693682wmf.16.2015.12.07.05.19.29 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 07 Dec 2015 05:19:30 -0800 (PST) From: Harbs Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_33C40B41-2F85-4665-88BF-14C2DBC6F7BA" Message-Id: <68BEFF57-D770-471E-9DB1-80D8060A7CDF@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: Next Flex SDK release Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 15:19:28 +0200 References: <9A16AE9A-9880-4AF9-BB05-B192C906ECE0@gmail.com> To: dev@flex.apache.org In-Reply-To: <9A16AE9A-9880-4AF9-BB05-B192C906ECE0@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) --Apple-Mail=_33C40B41-2F85-4665-88BF-14C2DBC6F7BA Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 OK. I=92m working on this, and I just added a comment to the JIRA with = my preliminary observations. Kind of interesting... I=92m going to need to find the source of the old TLF to compare. I = don=92t 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=92m downloading 4.6 now from Adobe=92s site. Hopefully I=92ll be able = to use and build that=85 If anyone has any thoughts to help me on this, I=92d appreciate it! ;-) Harbs On Nov 18, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Harbs wrote: > You had created such a flag, but enabling it causes lots of RTEs with = the current code. >=20 > I=92d rather find the underlying cause of the problem which seems to = be way 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=92d like to get an update from Harbs. I haven=92t 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=92t need whatever that new behavior was = meant to >> solve (which I think may have been related to table support). >=20 --Apple-Mail=_33C40B41-2F85-4665-88BF-14C2DBC6F7BA--