I kind of like this idea. But is this something folks want to do? Should we take a poll on this?
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hans | dotdotcommadot < h...@dotdotcommadot.com> wrote: > In my opinion we should be able to download all SDK's from the installer. > > And to be completely independent from adobe stuff, we should be able to > get the entire SDK a full "apache" library, even in 2 years from now. > So i would go for the 4.8.1 release with embeddded TLF, no? > A clean solution that will last a while. > > > On 11 Dec 2012, at 23:42, Om <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com > >wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >>> As previously external components (ex. TLF) become internal to Apache > >>> Flex, it is going to be quite hairy to get the licenses workflow going. > >>> Any thoughts on this? > >> > >> TLF now doesn't require you to accept an license it's part of the Flex > >> SDK/licensed under Apache. > > Exactly my point. Should Installer v.2 support both Flex 4.8 and 4.9 or > > just 4.9? > > If we want to support both in the same installer app, then it means > quite a > > bit of work to ensure that workflows are supported (one with external > > loading of TLF, one without). > > > > Or do we want to create a 4.8.1 version with TLF baked into it? Then > there > > is no need for external loading of TLF and we can do away with that piece > > completely. > > > > I raised these issues earlier, but I guess it got buried somewhere. > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> Justin >
