flex-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fuad Kamal <f...@anaara.com>
Subject Fwd: users Digest 3 Oct 2013 22:50:46 -0000 Issue 287
Date Thu, 03 Oct 2013 23:06:29 GMT
> From: Fuad Kamal <fuad@anaara.com>
> Subject: Re: users Digest 3 Oct 2013 22:50:46 -0000 Issue 287
> Date: October 3, 2013 7:04:15 PM EDT
> To: users-digest@flex.apache.org
> 
> ok, thanks.  I am working on a multicast-capable video player for a client based on David
Hassoun's REOPS player.  I'll let you know if I run into any issues using the latest OSMF
build with the current Apache Flex SDK.
> 
> Fuad Kamal
> Anaara LLC
> www.anaara.com
> 240.515.7578 (m)
> 214.279.1890 (f)
> twitter: @flexRonin
> linkedIn: linkedin.com/in/anaara
> photography: 
> http://500px.com/fuad2
> 
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 6:50 PM, users-digest-help@flex.apache.org wrote:
> 
>> On 10/2/13 7:46 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013, Fuad Kamal wrote:
>>> 
>>>> If we are using a fresh build of OSMF in our flex projects, is it
>>>> necessary to delete the OSMF swc from the Apache Flex framework
>>>> (/frameworks/libs/osmf.swf), or will the compiler be smart enough to
>>>> know
>>>> to prefer the OSMF swc in the project libs folder over the one in the
>>>> SDK?
>>>> Any particular reason why the latest SDK uses such an old build of OSMF
>>>> (pre-dating multicast capabilities)?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I  don't think  there is any particular reason.   We should be able to
>>> bump up the  downloaded osmf  version.
>> Fuad, the reason is that it is the version Adobe certified with Adobe Flex
>> 4.6.  Upgrading to the newer one may result in unexpected results.  If you
>> can help us out by testing the newer version, then that might help us
>> determine that it is safe to make that the new default.
>> 
>> The compiler should pick up both SWCs and use the time stamps in the
>> catalog.xml in the SWC and choose the newer one.  There is a chance that
>> an old version was re-compiled more recently than a new version in order
>> to slipstream some bug fix or if you built it yourself from sources.  But
>> usually it works as expected.
>> 
>> -Alex
> 


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message