OK, so this looks like a recent change. It seems to me the issues are: 1) Is it ok to take a .xml file from SVN and publish it on the web without a vote? Especially since it does not contribute to the content of our web site. 2) Is this a correct implementation? I'm wondering how would we test the next release. As soon as you replace/update that .xml file so we can test the next installer we are forcing everyone to suddenly start taking the next version. I understand you are saying we don't need to "test" the installer ever again, but I think we'd need to at least run it ourselves. 3) Is it reasonable to suddenly have the .xml file cause a different version to install to the customer's computer?
I think the answer is "no" to all 3. Or did I miss a thread and the mentors approved #1? -Alex On 1/1/13 9:43 AM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 1, 2013 8:22 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 1/1/13 1:29 AM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The config is not part of the source. There is only a reference to its > url >>> in the installer app. The installer was designed with this scenario in >>> mind. >>> >>> A copy is included as a convenience to the developer who uses it. In > that >>> sense it is more like a .properties file. >>> >>> We need to be able to change the sdk version without having to push an >>> update to the installer. Bundling the config xml with the source or > binary >>> will cause issues . >>> >> First, let me start off with saying that this kind of issue is a pain > point >> for me as well. Unfortunately, Apache doesn't release just binaries. I >> have definitely considered launching my own "company" to handle the stuff >> that Apache doesn't do very well, like binary distributions. >> >> AFAIK, the app cannot run without this file. We author it, it lives in our >> SVN, etc., so it is source. The definition for binary distro is a > compiled >> version of the source kit. I don't think you can remove files from the >> source distro in making it. >> > > The app will compile and run just fine even without the config xml being > present in the source or binary distro. It is NOT source. Like the Flex > SDK, .md5 file, the config xml is just another set of bytes that get > loaded during runtime to be processed. > > The config xml does not get compiled into the binary distro. > >> BTW, I'm not very familiar with .htaccess redirects, but I know we have to >> clear our builds from the incubator's dist folder when we get our final > dist >> folder. Would redirects still work for fetching the old incubator > release? >> > > If we just change the url for the flex sdk in the config xml that lives on > our website, there is no need for redirects. > >> How does the UI handle choosing which version to download? Justin went to >> all of this work to allow different player versions. We don't want to > lock >> folks down to the latest Flex version. >> > > You can pass a config xml with any combination of FP and AIR sdk via the > command line, using the -config option. > > Thanks, > Om -- Alex Harui Flex SDK Team Adobe Systems, Inc. http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
