I have tried downloading the file.. but the browser says I have no permission.. Also in your readme the folder that is pointed to is: eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flash.codemodel_4.7.0.349722 But on my machine it is: eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722
Regards, SWEN VAN ZANTEN Hoofdstraat 160 2171 BL, Sassenheim Op 30 jul. 2013, om 08:04 heeft Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> het volgende geschreven: > Even later update on the "New Project" issue: > > I think I have successfully patched a jar in FlashBuilder to get around > this problem. > > The patched jar and a readme is up on > http://people.apache.org/~aharui/FlashBuilder/ > > Can a few folks try it so we know it works? I think it will only work > with FlashBuilder 4.7 (and not 4.6). Then we'll discuss what to do next. > > -Alex > > On 7/29/13 5:45 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Latest update on the "New Project" issue: >> >> I think I've found the offending code for real this time. There is code >> for a version check that checks that the Flex version is less than 5.0.0 >> by doing: >> >> major * 100 + minor * 10 + micro >> >> This means that we don't have the option to change to Apache Flex 5.0.0 to >> get around this problem, and further means that someday when we really >> mean to do 5.0 we'll have this problem again. >> >> There is a class called MXMLVersion2009.java that creates an instance of >> org.osgi.Framework.Version like this: >> >> init(..., ..., >> new Version(4,5,0), new Version(5,0,0), new Version(4,0,0)); >> >> It looks like the expectation was that these versions would get updated >> when FB had synchronized releases with Adobe Flex SDKs. We need to go in >> an change that 5 to something larger somehow. >> >> >> I am passing the same information on to the FB team at Adobe. >> >> -Alex >> >> On 7/29/13 7:46 AM, "Scott Guthmann" <sc...@on3solutions.com> wrote: >> >>>> 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 3 issues: >>>> >>>> 1) ResourceModule via FlashVars: Yes it affects a small population of >>>> the total Flex SWFs in the world, but at least two of folks who took the >>>> time to try the RC found it. I have a fix ready to go. >>>> 2) This FB Issue. I am trying to get a response from the FB team. And >>>> I'm looking through their source to try to find the actual cause. If we >>>> cut another RC, we should at minimum update the release notes in the >>>>> kits themselves to describe this issue and its workaround. But maybe >>>>> by the time we get the next RC ready we'll have more information. >>>> 3) The Ilist issue. The bug author's workaround was to stop using >>>> DataList. Not everyone has the luxury of doing that, so IMO, we really >>>> don't have a workaround. And this will affect LCDS customers. I think >>>> we >should revert the change to Ilist, but we don't have to revert the >>>> change to ListCollectionView. >>>> >>>> So, I would prefer we cut another RC at least to address #1 and #3, and >>>> maybe we'll come up with a better plan for #2 during that time. >>>> >>>> -Alex >>> >>> To release or not to release - that is the question.... >>> +1 to Alex's approach. Strategically, it is better to release something >>> that provides developers with a good user experience. Releasing something >>> that requires deletion of files to work right or a patch to several of >>> the IDEs that are standard is a bad idea. Some of the goals we should >>> have when we test to determine if the RC should move forward: 1) Does the >>> SDK RC work smoothly on mac, windows, and Linux? 2) Does the AIR >>> installer work smoothly on mac, windows, and linux? 3) do the binary >>> distributions work smoothly on each of these platforms? 4) Are the manual >>> builds of the SDK and the binary versions supported by the top IDEs: >>> IntelliJ, Flash Builder, Flash Develop, and FDT? >>> >>> My opinion is that we are not adequately evaluating if the RC versions >>> are meeting these developer user experience questions when voting on an >>> them. The community millions of devs are not as capable of the patching & >>> work arounds as you guys are. The best marketing you can do is creating a >>> feature rich product that is easy to use for any skill level - make it >>> simple (which is difficult to do). >> >
