I posted my binary packages here:
http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlexJS/binaries/
Running "ant -f installer.xml install" worked for me on mac. I'm going to
be trying on Windows tomorrow. You will need to modify the
local.properties to point to the installer-config-4.0.xml and other
packages.
>Done for that method - any other methods need the same treatment?
UIComponent::initialize() is probably the best example. Its overwritten and
mangled quite successfully by the compiler.
Mike
Hi,
> Well in the Adobe days we'd put the code change behind a version flag. I
> never liked those flags if they controlled more than one code path because
> you had to take all new code paths or none.
I also dislike that them but it is a solution, I think there only been one or
two done since d
On 1/4/14 4:09 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> In fact, on my to do list is to try to get permission from Adobe to do
>>that sort of thing.
>Why would Adode need to give permission? Are you talking about yourself
>only or in general, it wasn't clear to me from the context.
Me personally.
Hi,
> That brings up a very interesting point. I am not sure how much work this is
> but it would be extremely helpful to developers looking at the source code to
> have methods with compiler-based mixins (or whatever you want to call them) be
> indicated as such in framework code comments, so we
Bummer.
Well in the Adobe days we'd put the code change behind a version flag. I
never liked those flags if they controlled more than one code path because
you had to take all new code paths or none.
Lately I've put static flags in the class in question so you can change
the code paths that way.
>so we don't have do this sort of "mystery meat" guesswork whilst debugging.
Totally agree.
>I know you can find what code the compiler outputs by using the
>"keep-generated-actionscript" and doing a diff with the uncompiled code, but
>that's just such a pain to look up something which should t
That brings up a very interesting point. I am not sure how much work this is,
but it would be extremely helpful to developers looking at the source code to
have methods with compiler-based mixins (or whatever you want to call them) be
indicated as such in framework code comments, so we don't have d
aha! thanks a lot!
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Michael A. Labriola <
labri...@digitalprimates.net> wrote:
> >Anyone have a clue where skinParts is getting populated from? Its not
> overridden in a derived class, so really not sure how/whats populating it?
>
> It's compiler magic. The compil
Hi,
OK I tried it out and yes for 4.11 it silently discards any RTEs that occur in
user's getter code. The changes in develop mean that you will see a RTE if one
occurs in a user getter.
Thanks,
Justin
>Anyone have a clue where skinParts is getting populated from? Its not
>overridden in a derived class, so really not sure how/whats populating it?
It's compiler magic. The compiler creates a static variable called _skinParts
on each class with the skin parts for the class in it. It then override
Hi,
> In fact, on my to do list is to try to get permission from Adobe to do that
> sort of thing.
Why would Adode need to give permission? Are you talking about yourself only or
in general, it wasn't clear to me from the context.
Perhaps we can make up a short list of people who are able to of
In SkinnableComponent, there is this:
protected function findSkinParts():void
{
if (skinParts)
and then there is this:
protected function get skinParts():Object
{
return null;
}
Anyone have a clue where skinParts is getting populated from? Its not
overrid
Thanks Alex. If you could forward me a copy of their reply off-list to
jbdes...@joeflash.ca and/or forward them my email, that would be greatly
appreciated.
___
Joseph Balderson, Flex & Flash Platform Developer :: http://joeflas
OK. I have forwarded your proposal to trademarks@.
-Alex
On 1/4/14 12:26 AM, "Joseph Balderson" wrote:
>My only concern is that, in the absence of the details contained in my
>formal
>request as outlined below, the initial contact to Apache trademarks
>regarding
>this issue might not constitut
Yeah, wiki stuff is out of date. You'll need to set up environment
variables. Hopefully the error messages are informative enough to give
you a clue.
I'll try to take a shot at updating the wiki. I might also be able to
post my binaries after I get a few kinks worked out.
-Alex
On 1/4/14 6:03
IIUC, Apache is a non-profit and there are some limitations, both tax-wise
and policy-wise, that don't allow for paid support revenue.
Realistically, there is currently free, essentially 24/7 support for
Apache Flex via the mailing lists. We luckily have key committers and
active community member
On Friday 03 Jan 2014 19:23:58 Alex Harui wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for trying it. I think these scripts are expecting to be run
> inside an expanded binary package. Run ant release,
falken@wopr:~/workspace/flex-falcon$ ant release
Buildfile: /home/falken/workspace/flex-falcon/build.xml
chec
My only concern is that, in the absence of the details contained in my formal
request as outlined below, the initial contact to Apache trademarks regarding
this issue might not constitute "putting our best foot forward" in having this
use case approved. And since I do not know the content of your i
Good catch, thanks! They might limit to the "per incident" support. I'll
call Monday, ask and will let you guys know.
Would it be totally unrealistic to consider the idea of Apache providing
this kind of support. Maybe not the unlimited plan, to be honnest it went
down the sink and the technician
20 matches
Mail list logo
