It is possible yes as I did it already but still needs more tests indeed, I
still think we can have another version which uses Falcon as the code seems
adding more features, I didn't dig that much in it for be able to figure them
yet but will try to do it in a near futur.
So, is there any objection to have one version in the SDK and one in Falcon ?
Frédéric THOMAS
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [FDB] Integration
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:35:03 +0000
>
> Yes, definitely. If you can get FDB with workers to not need Falcon
> classes that would be great.
>
> On 4/29/14 10:11 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If that means users won't be able to debug workers using the SDK until
> >Falcon has been released as part of it, I don't think that a good idea.
> >
> >Instead, can we have 2 versions ? one using the current ASC classes and
> >shipped with the current SDK, the other one in Falcon ?
> >
> >Frédéric THOMAS
> >
> >> From: aha...@adobe.com
> >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [FDB] Integration
> >> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:41:33 +0000
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/29/14 9:35 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The integration of the worker code itself which requires, in order to
> >>be
> >> >total, to modify the Ant script that build FDB in order to link the
> >> >Falcon sources (AST classes used to evaluate the expression), at the
> >> >moment I didn't do this part and then still use the old code which
> >> >required some integration code to work, I would like to commit that but
> >> >once the build script modified and everything is working, I will
> >>commit.
> >> >Is it fine for you like that ?
> >> You can check anything you want into the FDBWorkers branch, but IMO, FDB
> >> should not be using Falcon classes when we check it into the main
> >>branch.
> >> An alternate plan would be to make FDB with workers only available as
> >>part
> >> of Falcon and move it to that repo.
> >> -ALex
> >>
> >
>
