Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C784D9D2 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 3576 invoked by uid 500); 23 Oct 2012 19:24:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-flex-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 3543 invoked by uid 500); 23 Oct 2012 19:24:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 3535 invoked by uid 99); 23 Oct 2012 19:24:17 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:24:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FRT_ADOBE2,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of omuppi1@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.47] (HELO mail-la0-f47.google.com) (209.85.215.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:24:09 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f47.google.com with SMTP id h5so2459199lam.6 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:23:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=sWc97I1dM676GuFQ4VAmi4op3keNzY23N6HFt3jF6Qg=; b=ZFImPo7e/uFJ0LC34py+NtSVI6EB6JImtg04ekx9gzK4Q+6g1ovXhStaqo1CaeVoYC u5l00ze0J6XOib1yuLW6qIK/SHm1/TnKQAaXYez2r6xw7J+zTWFWh6l/nEKMzmq3SKa/ 6gkkzS+IGHfeGIi6llSP2zJD+JDi4VHQPjMZ1LXk6Vo2Ue6HZnlAY+66g+qZQ+7r3z9u KIyKrG+Fx6Bw1wHHwQkeO1yBXDODp00GZpt1At07cpTe5pAgElWcWXNu0YmhcE8DPBbO Wvd6CCvCn+J/q2Itlk1dM6Tkw2M6jkC/KLFk3sGrqmV7E52Q3bYHBcSgxN6XJWuroUTP QOzw== Received: by 10.152.123.103 with SMTP id lz7mr12164864lab.21.1351020228475; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:23:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: omuppi1@gmail.com Received: by 10.114.74.129 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:23:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <149F8129B58B2D418508E63117D9C5419B5AFAE54A@nambx05.corp.adobe.com> References: <149F8129B58B2D418508E63117D9C5419B5AFAE54A@nambx05.corp.adobe.com> From: Om Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:23:18 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AK2Xj5D5fnCMWd1oLH1KLhehUos Message-ID: Subject: Re: About Flex runtime To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042ef447cd7a2304ccbee8ed X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --f46d042ef447cd7a2304ccbee8ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Gordon Smith wrote: > Why are we stuck back on 11.1? 11.4 is current. > > - Gordon > > I dont think we have implemented any feature that depends on 11.1+ flash players. What is the point of bumping up the requirement? Unnecessarily bumping up flash player version requirements will cause a lot of developers to not upgrade their Flex SDK versions. I have seen this first hand. Of course, this does not prevent folks from running their Flex apps using the latest flash players. In enterprise world, such upgrades are done infrequently; we need to we very careful when we bump up the flash player version requirement. Thanks, Om > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Harui [mailto:aharui@adobe.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 12:15 PM > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: About Flex runtime > > > > > On 10/23/12 12:04 PM, "Om" wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/22/12 10:37 PM, "Ram Lee" wrote: > >> > >>> Which version of runtime(Flash Player and AIR runtime) is the Next > >>> Flex Release going to build on or compatible with? > >>> > >> What answer would you like to hear? > >> > >> > > Great question! As an enterprise developer, I would like to be able > > to upgrade my Flex SDK without having to ask my clients to upgrade > > their Flash Player. I think we should bump up Flash Player > > requirements only during major releases. This way it brings some > > predictability and allows developers to plan their upgrade cycles. Does > that sound reasonable? > > > Maybe for this next release we should make sure folks are testing with > different runtime versions. I think we need to prove it works on the > latest runtime versions, but not tie ourselves to it. > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > > --f46d042ef447cd7a2304ccbee8ed--