Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try again or contact the server administrator."
Also, the folder in my FB installation is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722 This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit Thanks, Om On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <f...@hdsign.nl> wrote: > I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no > permission.. > Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is: > eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722 > But on my machine it is: > eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722 > > Regards, > > SWEN VAN ZANTEN > Hoofdstraat 160 > 2171 BL, Sassenheim > > Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> het > volgende geschreven: > > > Even later update on the "New Project" issue: > > > > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get around > > this problem. > > > > The patched jar and a readme is up on > > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/ > > > > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work > > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue: > >> > >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code > >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0 > >> by doing: > >> > >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro > >> > >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0 > to > >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really > >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again. > >> > >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of > >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this: > >> > >> init(..., ..., > >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0)); > >> > >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated > >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go > in > >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow. > >> > >> > >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe. > >> > >> -Alex > >> > >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which > means > >>>> we have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest > >>>> update on the 3 issues: > >>>> > >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of > >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took > the > >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go. > >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team. > And > >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If > we > >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the > >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe > >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information. > >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using > >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we > really > >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I > think > >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the > >>>> change to ListCollectionView. > >>>> > >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3, > and > >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time. > >>>> > >>>> -Alex > >>> > >>> To release or not to release - that is the question.... > >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something > >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing > something > >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of > >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should > >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does > the > >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR > >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary > >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the > manual > >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs: > >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT? > >>> > >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions > >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an > >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the > patching & > >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is > creating a > >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it > >>> simple (which is difficult to do). > >> > > > >
