Om, No blog post. A google plus user posted that tid bit on the Apache Flex Community page ( https://plus.google.com/104408486838026884935/posts/17vGFEevkZM). I don't know of any side affects yet, as i haven't moved off of Flex 4.6 yet. But when i do (planning for this next dev cycle to move to Flex 4.10) i'll put up some updates to the group, and maybe even write up a blog about it :) Just don't have enough detail to warrant one now
Chris On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <nicho...@spoon.as>wrote: > As time marches on, this method of "fixing" DV will become more and more > broken. FP version changes and SDK changes will not be realized and will > cause issues -- from crashes to bad code. I've already run across some > major issues trying to use the new DataGrid with the hacked DV setup... > The time to start investigating your workflow is now... > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:59 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala > <bigosma...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Chris Martin <windo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > It is really up to Adobe to figure out if they want to honor their > > > > user base's desire to continue using FB 4.6. DV does not work with > > > Apache > > > > Flex in any case. > > > > > > Om, > > > > > > Just a heads up, Design View does work with Apache Flex 4.9.1. But you > > > have to modify the sdk's flex-sdk-description.xml file by changing the > > > value in the version tag to read 4.6.0. Then design view will fire > right > > > up. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > Thanks for the note! I learnt that nugget in this thread. Is this > > document somewhere on a blog post, etc.? If not I will add a note about > > this on our wiki. Any known side effects of doing this? > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/30/13 4:49 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >Hi, > > > > > > > > > >> It is still using bad code, but the change allows 4.10 to work. > > > > >So 4*100+10*10 + 0 == 500 is going to be treated the same as 5.0.0 > > > (5*100 > > > > >+ 0 + 0 = 500), 4.10.1 (say we need to patch it) = 501 which will > end > > up > > > > >with a higher version than than 5.0.0. > > > > I didn't see any compares like that in the code I saw, but there > could > > be > > > > elsewhere. > > > > > > > > >100% sure this is just not going to cause more issues down the > track? > > > > Nope, but it is relatively safe. Basically the class I changed has 3 > > > > values, current, min and max. I'm just changing the max value from 5 > > to > > > > 100. I don't think a max value would get used for version against > > > version > > > > compares. > > > > > > > > -Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
