incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Flex SDK Installer 2.0 RC1
Date Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:25:42 GMT
OK, so this looks like a recent change.  It seems to me the issues are:

1) Is it ok to take a .xml file from SVN and publish it on the web without a
vote?  Especially since it does not contribute to the content of our web
site.
2) Is this a correct implementation?  I'm wondering how would we test the
next release.  As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can test
the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the next
version.  I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the installer
ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves.
3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different version
to install to the customer's computer?

I think the answer is "no" to all 3.  Or did I miss a thread and the mentors
approved #1?

-Alex

On 1/1/13 9:43 AM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 1, 2013 8:22 AM, "Alex Harui" <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/1/13 1:29 AM, "Om" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The config is not part of the source.  There is only a reference to its
> url
>>> in the installer app.   The installer was designed with this scenario in
>>> mind.
>>> 
>>> A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it.  In
> that
>>> sense it is more like a .properties file.
>>> 
>>> We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an
>>> update to the installer.  Bundling the config xml with the source or
> binary
>>> will cause issues .
>>> 
>> First, let me start off with saying that this kind of issue is a pain
> point
>> for me as well.  Unfortunately, Apache doesn't release just binaries.  I
>> have definitely considered launching my own "company" to handle the stuff
>> that Apache doesn't do very well, like binary distributions.
>> 
>> AFAIK, the app cannot run without this file. We author it, it lives in our
>> SVN, etc., so it is source.  The definition for binary distro is a
> compiled
>> version of the source kit.  I don't think you can remove files from the
>> source distro in making it.
>> 
> 
> The app will compile and run just fine even without the config xml being
> present in the source or binary distro.  It is NOT source.  Like the Flex
> SDK, .md5 file,  the config xml is just another set of bytes that get
> loaded during runtime to be processed.
> 
> The config xml does not get compiled into the binary distro.
> 
>> BTW, I'm not very familiar with .htaccess redirects, but I know we have to
>> clear our builds from the incubator's dist folder when we get our final
> dist
>> folder.  Would redirects still work for fetching the old incubator
> release?
>> 
> 
> If we just change the url for the flex sdk in the config xml that lives on
> our website, there is no need for redirects.
> 
>> How does the UI handle choosing which version to download?  Justin went to
>> all of this work to allow different player versions.  We don't want to
> lock
>> folks down to the latest Flex version.
>> 
> 
> You can pass a config xml with any combination of FP and AIR sdk via the
> command line, using the -config option.
> 
> Thanks,
> Om

-- 
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui


Mime
View raw message