Same here: Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be "eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722"
??? EdB On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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). >> >> >> > >> >> -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
