On Mar 19, 2014 12:56 AM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: > > So I did the change in CompilerAPI.java ( removed hasValidLicence) and now both the compiler and the runtime error disappeared. > Commit ?
+1 I will give it a try with ILOG Elixir in the morning. Thanks, Om > > Maurice > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 19 mars 2014 08:25 > À : dev@flex.apache.org > Objet : RE: ILOG Elixr compatibility > > Yes, I understand. > From the code path, hasValidLicence(licenceMap, id) checks whether the current licenceReq id applies to FlexSDK ("mx.fbpro") , and if not, considers this is a third-party licence and adds the dependencies (among other things). > The name is misleading, it should be isFlexSDKLicence instead of hasValidLicence (I think that's why it was broken ). > > But since there is no more [RequiresLicence( id="mx.fbpro" ) ] in the source, then maybe we could just remove the test, and execute the "third party" path in all cases. > > WDYT? > > Maurice > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mercredi 19 mars 2014 04:26 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: ILOG Elixr compatibility > > The compiler code looks like it has a code path where it gets information from somewhere and auto-injects a class into the SWF so folks don't have to bother adding classes like that. > > But when we donated the code to Apache we tried to neuter the FB standard/premium check and broke this code path. I have made a suggestion for fixing. Don't now if it will work or not. > > -Alex > > On 3/18/14 5:57 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote: > > >That would mean adding: > > > >private var dep: com.ibm.ilog.elixir.utils::LicenseHandler; > > > >in the main application... > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > >De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com] > >Envoyé : mercredi 19 mars 2014 01:22 > >À : dev@flex.apache.org > >Objet : RE: ILOG Elixr compatibility > > > >I have added one line in the main program, to force the class to be > >included, and the error disappeared. > > > >private var lh: LicenseHandler; > > > >Could you try the same with your licenced version of Elixir ? > > > >Maurice > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > >De : Maurice Amsellem [mailto:maurice.amsel...@systar.com] > >Envoyé : mercredi 19 mars 2014 01:14 > >À : dev@flex.apache.org > >Objet : RE: ILOG Elixr compatibility > > > >I imported the project and run it with SDK 4.9, got the error > >ReferenceError: Error #1065: La variable LicenseHandler n'est pas définie. > > > >So I can have a look now. > > > >Maurice > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > >De : omup...@gmail.com [mailto:omup...@gmail.com] De la part de > >OmPrakash Muppirala Envoyé : mercredi 19 mars 2014 00:52 À : > >dev@flex.apache.org Objet : RE: ILOG Elixr compatibility > > > >On Mar 18, 2014 4:45 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" > ><maurice.amsel...@systar.com> > >wrote: > >> > >> It really seems that the code is operational. > >> RequiresLicense meta is also in the constants: > >> > >> StandardDefs.java: > >> public static final String MD_REQUIRESLICENSE = > >> "RequiresLicense"; > >> > >> BTW, I tried reproducing the issue, so I downloaded a trial version > >> of > >Elixir 3.5, and built a 10 lines app displaying a Calendar, with SDK 4.9. > >> And I had no issues: > >> The calendar appears correctly (with Trial Version watermark). > >> > >> What's wrong ? is it that the trial version has no licence management ? > >> > > > >Yes, that is correct. I have a licensed version that I tried with. I > >can repro this issue. > > > >Are you able to repro with the test case attached to the JIRA ticket? > > > >Thanks, > >Om > > > >> Maurice > >> > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Envoyé : mardi > >> 18 mars 2014 23:46 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: ILOG Elixr > >> compatibility > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> CompilerAPI.java someone added this: > >> // ToDo: For Apache Flex remove this section since there is no > >> longer a > >license. > >> > >> Perhaps some code was removed as well? > >> > >> Justin >
