On 10/3/14, 2:39 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>If there is no strict link between compiler version an framework version >... would it actually be a good idea to have separate versioning for >framework and compiler? Falcon will probably have separate versioning. The first real release will probably not be 4.x, but rather, 1.0. At one point, the goal was for Falcon to be more SDK-independent that MXMLC. That was one of the reasons for compiler.mxml.children-as-data. The less code generated by the compiler, the fewer SDK dependencies there could be on that code. That was back when Falcon/ASC2.0 was to be bundled in Flash Builder to be used for code intelligence. This is less a concern for Apache Flex these days, so we don¹t have the same motivation for Falcon to be SDK-independent, but IMO, since there are fewer compiler-knowledgable people in the community, it still may be worth finishing the children-as-data handling in Falcon and the SDK so that future changes can be done in the SDK code. IIRC, there are subtle dependencies between MXMLC and the SDK it ships with, but the short-term goal for Falcon is to get it to generate the same code as MXMLC 4.6, and I don¹t believe Apache Flex has made any other changes to MXMLC¹s generated code so I suspect that Falcon should work with 4.6 and above. Then when that works, we can see about getting compiler.mxml.children-as-data to have the same net effect. -Alex
