Ok … so the Maven build now produces a flexjs-sdk-description.xml
<flexjs-sdk-description>
<name>Apache Flex: FlexJS 0.8.0-SNAPSHOT FP20.0 AIR20.0 en_US</name>
<version>0.8.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
<build>201701252211</build>
<flavor>default</flavor>
<default-locale>en_US</default-locale>
<flash>
<version>20.0</version>
</flash>
<air>
<version>20.0</version>
</air>
</flexjs-sdk-description>
And I took the opportunity to comment out a line in the team-page example as it
was breaking the build …
Chris
Am 25.01.17, 22:29 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>:
I never said to drop support for FlashBuilder. All I wanted, is to have the
default distribution to be clean and to apply the FB hack on demand if
necessary.
But I’m ok with a flexjs specific descriptor. I hate doing things sloppily
and definitely hate hacks like the one needed to support FB.
Chris
Am 25.01.17, 21:06 schrieb "[email protected] im Auftrag von OmPrakash
Muppirala" <[email protected] im Auftrag von [email protected]>:
On Jan 25, 2017 10:21 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Alex,
But all the IDEs are alive and are being maintained. Flash Builder is
the
only one that's but been maintained.
But I'd be ok with an additional descriptor if more people here think we
should keep legacy stuff in a new product.
I think we should maintain support for FB as much as possible.
A lot of Flex developers already use it, so supporting that IDE would
be a
good idea to increase adoption of FlexJS.
Thanks,
Om
Chris
Von meinem Samsung Galaxy Smartphone gesendet.
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Alex Harui <[email protected]>
Datum: 25.01.17 17:34 (GMT+01:00)
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [FlexJS] Change flex sdk descriptor?
On 1/25/17, 7:51 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Well the thing is, that I don’t want to have to rely on a single
>dimension of values to switch multiple dimensions of functionality.
What
>happens if people start using x > 4.8 for detecting FlexJS and assume
we
>release a regular Flex 4.8? What happens then? Things can get really
ugly
>in that case and I am sure it’s gonna happen soon ;-)
>
>I guess we shouldn’t force a hack in our SDK just because a no longer
>supported legacy IDE otherwise doesn’t know how to handle it.
We don't have control over many other IDEs as well, so a change here
requires every other IDE to change. Seems like we have more control
over
IntelliJ.
What if we introduce a new file called flexjs-sdk-descriptor.xml and
leave
the old one with the hack for legacy support. Then all IDE vendors can
move to checking the new file when they have time?
Thoughts?
-Alex
