I'm not sure I understand the plan. There are plenty of Adobe dependencies even in 4.9.
On 12/11/12 5:26 PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> -- Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe Systems, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
