>
> > Ok, I wasn't sure if we clone something that does all builds whether
> that would take you over the free limit.
> > Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
> >
> The cost is incurred only when the jobs are run (i.e. for CPU usage). If
> we have enough committers bring thei
Imo, Apache flex asdoc should link to adobe aslr for runtime api. I think I see
javadoc for third party jars do similar.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Maurice Amsellem wrote:
Thank you Alex.
There is another topic related to that, that was raised by someone in the
For record keeping purposes please submit the content in a jira issue.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Maurice Amsellem wrote:
>Anyway: can somebody who knows the website publication process do it for me?
I can do it.
However, I wasn't following this thread, so is th
It looks like the asdocs are missing for this... In each of the binary
packages + source packages there is a docs folder, but it is empty.
I am working on migrating the FlexUnit tutorials on the website (not
complete yet). http://flex.staging.apache.org/flexunit/tutorial/Should
have it compl
Hi,
> I am going to try to run the RC against a bunch of tests tomorrow and ensure
> it behaves as expected.
Thanks Mike much appreciated.
Given the changes between RC3 and what will be RC4 consist of 2 header files
changes I will be carrying over votes.
So if you vote +1 on RC3 that will car
Any reason why this would work with 4.6 but cause an error with Apache flex
(4.11, 4.12)
Description Resource Path Location Type
exception during transcoding: svgtest.mxml /svgtest/src line 16 Flex Problem
Unable to transcode sample.svg. svgtest.mxml /svgtest/src line 16 Flex
Problem
http://ns.a
Here's an interesting post on the topic:
http://forum.starling-framework.org/topic/using-the-flash-text-engine-to-render-text
On Mar 30, 2014, at 8:55 PM, Maurice Amsellem wrote:
> This is already the technique used in many places:
> - TextInput / TextArea: when the text is not in edit mode, dis
>Do anyone have any any objections to the current RC (copyright or otherwise)
>before I go to the effort of making another one? Has anyone actually tested
>the current RC for things that actually matter? Like that the signed fields
>are correct, it can compile and it actually works? I would like
Hi,
> In the meantime the good old monkey patch style saved me from more trouble
> with the Scroller components,
Anything you do find please raise a JIRA for it so at least we know about about
and can hopefully fix it - we'd like to get to the state were there no need for
any monkey patches but
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Ok, I wasn't sure if we clone something that does all builds whether that
> would take you over the free limit.
> Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
>
>
The cost is incurred only when the jobs are run (i.e. for CPU usag
Ok, I wasn't sure if we clone something that does all builds whether that would
take you over the free limit.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alex Harui
mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> wrote:
I was thinking we'd
HI,
> I think the correct and faster choice is to put adobe headers in those two
> files
Done.
IMO This was not required for all sort of reasons previously discussed and this
would apply here [1] and they certainly wouldn't pass [2]. There is no code in
those two files they are just very si
Hi again,
thanks for the input about that ;)
There are good reasons against are a complete refactoring,
looking especially on 3rd party code.
And it is large task to refactor code afterwards *hrm.
So it would be great to remove the private methods case by case like Jackson
Dunstan said.
In th
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I was thinking we'd have to replicate all builds not just sdk and mustella.
>
Makes sense. We just need to get all the builds and tests working on one
VM (mine) first. Then we can clone it to multiple VMs and enable/disable
them on demand.
I was thinking we'd have to replicate all builds not just sdk and mustella.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given the apparently total lack of support from INFRA and builds@a.
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Erik de Bruin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given the apparently total lack of support from INFRA and builds@a.o for a
> git based CI process on a Windows slave, isn't it time to start thinking
> about providing our own VM and running the Jenkins jobs off that?
>
+1 for sure
Hi Maurice,
I didn't see your response before responding to myself.
Thank you :-)
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/Strange-behavior-with-setMonth-method-of-Date-object-tp36525p36528.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list ar
Sorry,
I should have post this message in the flex users list.
The problem seems to be due to the fact that the day is not set initially.
So the runtime uses the system current date (March 31). But as april has
only 30 days, when setMonth(3) is executed, the date is automatically set to
may...
This is because April has only 30 days. 31 of april does not exit.
So you should set setDate(1) before doing setMonth(3)
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : after24 [mailto:vinc...@after24.net]
Envoyé : lundi 31 mars 2014 18:47
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Strange behavior with setMonth
Hello,
I'm facing a strange behavior with the Date object :
var myDate:Date = new Date();
myDate.setFullYear(2014);
myDate.setMonth(3);
trace(myDate); // return Thu May 1 18:31:07 GMT+0200 2014
myDate.setMonth(3);
trace(myDate); // return Tue Apr 1 18:31:07 GMT+0200 2014
The returned month is f
I think the correct and faster choice is to put adobe headers in those two files
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
"Michael A. Labriola" wrote:
>My understanding is that Adobe donated stuff to fluint under Adobe copyright
>and BSD. That's why you put the Adobe header b
>My understanding is that Adobe donated stuff to fluint under Adobe copyright
>and BSD. That's why you put the Adobe header back in a bunch of files. My
>view says that two of these Adobe files are in CIListener. I think we need
>Mike to verify or provide a more detailed explanation of how th
>Anyway: can somebody who knows the website publication process do it for me?
I can do it.
However, I wasn't following this thread, so is the team ok regarding the
content ad location to publish?
If so, send me the content, I will format it, review it and get it published.
Maurice
-Messag
Thanks Alex.
-Message d'origine-
De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com]
Envoyé : lundi 31 mars 2014 16:18
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: Time to move the CI builds to a "private" VM?
We got legal protection, JIRA, servers, mailing lists, a process for making
decision, and more.
BTW: I'm certainly NOT asking for any credits for the writing of this page.
It is purely "public domain" in my mind and you can do whatever you want
with it, with or without my permission.
Franck.
2014-03-31 16:33 GMT+02:00 Franck Wolff :
> The new page is just a modification of an existing Apa
The new page is just a modification of an existing Apache Flex page, it
follows the look & feel of the website and I believe it could be even
published as is (hard to say without knowing which CMS you use).
Anyway: can somebody who knows the website publication process do it for me?
Franck.
201
We got legal protection, JIRA, servers, mailing lists, a process for
making decision, and more.
Infra is a pain point, especially around Jenkins. I signed up for a VM
but never really got it together. If someone has the time to set it up,
let me know.
-Alex
On 3/31/14 1:35 AM, "Maurice Amselle
I agree this should be a regular page.
However, the web site is not that easy to modify ( CMS content and two-phase
publication) + you need access to svn
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : Franck Wolff [mailto:frawo...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : lundi 31 mars 2014 14:27
À : dev@flex.apache.or
I forgot about it, thanks.
So private and protected basically the same ( 56 and 57 ms)
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : João Fernandes [mailto:joaopedromartinsfernan...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : lundi 31 mars 2014 15:08
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: Time for refactor? Reworking the ann
When there is doubt regarding performance, Jackson Dunstan probably has the
answer[1] :)
I also agree that we should take care of those pesky private methods case
by case.
[1] http://jacksondunstan.com/articles/1820
On 31 March 2014 12:57, Maurice Amsellem wrote:
> I am not sure of that , but i
Thanks Justin.
I don't think it should be just a Wiki page. In my mind, it should rather
be a regular page of the website, either in the "About Flex" or "Community"
section (your call).
Can you grant me a (temporary) write access to the website? Where should I
put this new page?
Franck.
2014-0
On 31/03/14 12:17, Konstantin Elstner wrote:
Is is time to restructure / rework and revalidate every as private declared
method and variable in the Flex sources?
I think it's a lot better to go case by case; in theory as soon as a
method isn't private it needs adding to the tests.
You can al
Hi,
> The real problem is the assumption when a private function is created.
> Protected and Public functions are under the assumption that the user will
> give incorrect data and the data needs to go through sanity checks / bounds
> checks / etc.
Also true for a lot of public functions as well.
Namespace checks are done in the compiler, regardless if they are private,
protected or public. That shouldn't impact performance.
The real problem is the assumption when a private function is created.
Protected and Public functions are under the assumption that the user will
give incorrect data
Hi,
IMO some things should be kept private, but I agree in Flex too much is
private, we can look at them on a one by one basis.
Every time we make something private protected we risk breaking 3rd party code
if there a name collision so need to take a little care.
Thanks,
Justin
I am not sure of that , but it might be that private methods execute faster
than protected ones (because the resolution can be done at compile time).
So turning every private method to protected might have an impact on
performances.
Needs confirmation from someone who has a deep knowledge on AS3
HI,
> Any chance to get this page published anytime soon (with Andrew's
> modifications applied)?
You don't have to be a committer to make wiki edits changes/ just ask for wiki
access put the file there yourself may be the quickest way.
Thanks,
Justin
Any chance to get this page published anytime soon (with Andrew's
modifications applied)?
Tell me how I can help.
Franck.
2014-03-26 17:26 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui :
> Ended up in spam because of the zip attachment. Will try to look later.
>
> On 3/26/14 2:06 AM, "Franck Wolff" wrote:
>
> >Anyon
Hi,
for me as Flex developer it is very annoying to find a problem / bug in the
current Flex versions.
In the most case I analyze the problem / bug and then I find the "source" of
the problem,
but I can not integrate a workaround, because the method which is responsible
has a private scope.
Cur
Hi Erik,
had similar trouble with the Flexmojos CI server. Perhaps the option I chose
for FM could apply to the Flex project too.
In my case I tried several approaches with Amazon EC2 Windows Nodes as well as
Microsoft Azure (Later I liked a lot more), but cancelled both because of the
costs. M
I wasn't part on the project when it started and incubated at the ASF.
What did we get from being an ASF project, apart from the Apache brand "fame"
and "durability" (which I must say, is an important thing) ?
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl]
E
Apparently they do. There is this guy Hervé Boutemy, from another project,
who is a bit more patient than I am, he is currently again offering to help
out INFRA with the proper maintenance of the VMs. He has made the same
offer repeatedly over the last few months, initially together with me, but
th
I agree, but this is shocking.
Do other Apache projects have the same concerns?
Maurice
-Message d'origine-
De : Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl]
Envoyé : lundi 31 mars 2014 09:22
À : dev@flex.apache.org
Objet : Re: Time to move the CI builds to a "private" VM?
I have no idea
I have no idea, but we've been trying to get someone - anyone - from
builds@a.o to help us out, but there has hardly been any response from
them, and even less action. I think having CI is very important for the
project and since Apache seems unable/unwilling to support us with the
proper infrastru
44 matches
Mail list logo
