Hi, that issue is issue #3 in my list. Can you provide more information about how you fixed it? I would think you would have to swap out 4.10.0 swcs for 4.9.x swcs.
On 7/26/13 3:19 PM, "Swen van Zanten" <f...@hdsign.nl> wrote: >Hi All, > >I had this [1] today on a new project alsoŠ 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 >> >
