Hi All,

I had this [1] today on a new project also… I guess this is a bug too.. Or a fb 
bug.. With 4.9.1 I haven't had this problem.
The same way i fixed this with a new project as I did with a old project.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631

Regards,

SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstraat 160
2171 BL, Sassenheim

Op 27 jul. 2013, om 00:03 heeft Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> het volgende 
geschreven:

> Hi,
> 
> At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
> 
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions.  The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder is incorrect.
> This gives a bad first impression on new users.
> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
> implementations.  The population of LCDS customers is also small, but many
> of them are the big enterprises and we don't want to give them a reason
> not to move to Apache Flex.
> 
> For #1: I have a fix ready to go.  It passed all mustella tests.
> For #3: I think we should just revert the change to IList.  No need to
> force IList implementations to implement this method.  I cannot figure out
> how the customer that brought up this issue got around it.  I suppose we
> could ship our own version of DataItem, but I'd rather not and I think
> that requires going through a donation process.
> 
> For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
> are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not.  I'm not sure there is
> a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
> to respond in the timeframe we want.  What would be the negative impact of
> just lying about the version in flex-sdk-description.xml?  We could also
> rename the release to 4.9.5 or even go to 5.0.0.
> 
> I think we need to resolve all three issues before we really push out
> these bits. 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -Alex
> 

Reply via email to