Well ... as you asked the question ... ;-) A real test should be independent of the implementation it tests. So if in both cases (mxml and falcon) the same testsuite should be used. Only this way they actually test if the compiler tests the same thing. So in this case, I think the solution would be to take the testsuite out of both and merge them together in one testsuite ... the you can build "flex-sdk" and "falcon" and then run the testsuite against the compiler you like.
Actually everywhere you have cycles, you can usually resolve them by "merging the entire cicle into one" or by "splitting up the cycle" ... I would strongly suggest splitting up, as you should only use merging if you are unable to split it up cause the code is so mixed up, that it won't split (Actually have come across this several times in multiple projects) ;-) Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Gesendet: Montag, 5. Oktober 2015 23:55 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: [DISCUSS] Release Apache FlexJS 0.5.0 On 10/5/15, 2:46 PM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Regarding the binaries ... I was refering to downloading the binaries >from the flex-sdk that the build seems to be relying on. Not any >resources from flex-asjs ... I doubt that the asjs+falcon bundle should >require "dynamic updates" from the flex-sdk. Well, at least historically, Falcon was/is intended to replace MXMLC, which presents the same interesting puzzle for the flex-sdk. Some changes might require a fix in both places, and you want to know that changes to flex-sdk can be compiled by flex-falcon and that changes to flex-falcon can still compile flex-sdk. So IMO, the question still remains: how do you develop a framework and a compiler at the same time and run automated tests? > >I'll give this a try tomorrow ... now it's time for bed for me :-) I think Infra is taking down LDAP and therefore most of your access that you’d need anyway. Thanks again for trying. -Alex
