More on how to write the JS side:
https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/docs/js-for-compiler#tags
Search for '@implements'. It has a short but sweet example.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
>>> >Also IChrome (looks like a Marker Interface) could lead to a s
>> >Also IChrome (looks like a Marker Interface) could lead to a subtle
>> >problem
>> >on the JS side. I have not been following the conversation on how to deal
>> >with Interfaces on the JS side. If we are planning on using 'duck
>> >typing',
>> >then we could run into issues with empty interfa
On 7/28/13 2:20 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>>
>> At this point, I'm liking flags better, but I'm still not decided.
>>
>>
>Sounds like a good compromise. Although I am not sure if it solves the
>issue of index management. I guess it would look like this:
>addElementAt(o:Object, index:int
I'd say 'release' AND 'develop', that way the fixes will be run
through Mustella and the build machine as well as made part of the
release. The 'release' branch doesn't get automatically tested or
build.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 7/28/13 10:50 PM, "Justin
On 7/28/13 10:50 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>>If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
>> after Europe has had a chance to weigh in on this thread.
>Why not check in so people can review? That how the system works, commit
>then review.
I was hoping there would be co
+1 on the fix and reverting. Thank you Alex for figuring those out.
I think we should actively prevent the 'New Project' issue from
occurring. All we need to do is change the version number to something
with only single digits. That really couldn't be simpler, could it?
5.0 has my vote.
This is n
Hi,
> OK, do we have consensus on taking both the resource module fix and
> reverting Ilist?
I'm not sure enough people have expressed an option on either issue for
consensus to be reached.
> If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
> after Europe has had a chance t
On 7/28/13 9:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> What day do you get in the airplane?
>Thursday your time.
OK, do we have consensus on taking both the resource module fix and
reverting Ilist?
If so, I will check them into the release4.10 branch sometime tomorrow
after Europe has had a chanc
Hi,
> What day do you get in the airplane?
Thursday your time.
Justin
On 7/28/13 9:15 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means
>>we
>> have a few more days before we would release.
>
>2 day + 3 days (to vote) = 5 day minimum when means a minimal of over a
>week since the vote passed. Do you reall
Hi,
> I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means we
> have a few more days before we would release.
2 day + 3 days (to vote) = 5 day minimum when means a minimal of over a week
since the vote passed. Do you really think we should delay that long?
Just we aware that
Hi,
> Justin, I am not able to reproduce this issue. Can you please provide some
> info on this?
Just select Nightly and look at the text in the status window it has the URL
for RC3. Not had a chance to debug as yet.
Thanks,
Justin
I have a suggestion on this tutorial writing thing. If anyone of you that
have this environment setup can record and upload a raw unedited video I
can edit it or rerecord it and republish it. What I'm thinking is that you
could log out and then log back in as guest, then go through recording the
en
On 7/28/13 7:57 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>I really think that it is not fair for us to delay the release just
>because
>of this FB bug.
I am hoping we're going to release something other than RC3 which means we
have a few more days before we would release. Here's my latest update on
the
Bump...
Justin, I am not able to reproduce this issue. Can you please provide some
info on this?
Thanks,
Om
On Jul 27, 2013 11:51 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looks like nightly option is downloading RC3 not the nig
On Jul 28, 2013 7:37 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Hi Justin, what say Adobe about this?
> Been no official response from Adobe but I wouldn't really expect one, we
have to submit a bug in there bug base and it may or may not get fixed at
some time in the future. I can't see them fixing
Hi,
> Hi Justin, what say Adobe about this?
Been no official response from Adobe but I wouldn't really expect one, we have
to submit a bug in there bug base and it may or may not get fixed at some time
in the future. I can't see them fixing it and releasing a patch in under a
month. Pure specu
Hi Justin, what say Adobe about this?
Franklin Garzón
Regional Development Manager
MCITP Microsoft SQLServer
*Si el hombre dejara de aprender entonces dejaría de existir*
094496862
> From: jus...@classsoftware.com
> Subject: Apache Flex 4.10.0 Release
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:19
Hi,
So far the only consensus (from those who have been vocal) is not to release
the voted on RC3 but:
- We don't seem to have a solution the the Flash Builder version issue other
than changing version number to single digits.
- The code for the release module issues hasn't been checked in.
Are
Hi,
> You can checkout master and then revert the merge commit while telling it to
> make the release branch the mainline using:
>
> $ git revert -m 2 HEAD
Much appreciated but care to explain how this actually works or is needed?
Wouldn't that put it behind the release branch?
I think also i
OK, found time to look. The working SWF is not using mx.data.DataList
which is why it won't throw the verify error. Somehow, when you are
regenerating the data classes, the data wizard decided that it didn't need
DataList and other LCDS classes.
If that works for you, great, but for those who mu
You can checkout master and then revert the merge commit while telling it to
make the release branch the mainline using:
$ git revert -m 2 HEAD
This will make a new commit to master and then I see no diffs when doing:
$ git diff master release4.10.0
--Dasa
On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:37 PM, Justin
There's also a mirror on GitHub at:
https://github.com/apache/flex-sdk
--Dasa
On Jul 27, 2013, at 12:27 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
> You could use the fisheye link for our repos:
> https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/~br=develop/flex-sdk/
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/13 7:06 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Peter Ent wrote:
> >
> >> I could go either way on this as well. There is one advantage I can
> >>think
> >> of that addChromeElement et al has over th
>
>
> - Apache Flex 4.8 is not on the SDK List
>
This is intentional. From 4.9 onwards, the TLF library has been included
with the SDK. This changes the installation sequence and it is cumbersome
to support two different installation sequences in the same Installer
version.
Thanks,
Om
25 matches
Mail list logo
