OK, my bad on the folder name. Updated the readme. Anybody know what permission I would have to change to allow the jar to be downloaded?
On 7/29/13 11:57 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote: >Same here: > >Permission error on the download and the FB 4.7 location seems to be >"eclipse/plugins/com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722" > >??? > >EdB > > > >On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:50 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala ><bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Same here. Getting a "*Server Problem**Unknown server error.* Try >>again or >> contact the server administrator." >> >> Also, the folder in my FB installation >> is eclipse\plugins\com.adobe.flexbuilder.codemodel_4.7.0.349722 >> >> This is on Windows 7, FB 4.7 64-bit >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Swen van Zanten <f...@hdsign.nl> >>wrote: >> >>> 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). >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> > > > >-- >Ix Multimedia Software > >Jan Luykenstraat 27 >3521 VB Utrecht > >T. 06-51952295 >I. www.ixsoftware.nl
