On 12/18/13 9:48 AM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
>> >>Well, I am making it a separate package. The question is whether you >>think we should also move this code out of the flex-sdk repo. >What does "separate package inside the flex-sdk" mean? >is that a distinct and autonomous directory inside the flex-sdk repo, >much like "mustella" or "modules" ? >If it's that, then yes, that should be fine, as far as there is no direct >dependency on the flex sdk build. Currently the files are where they have always been. All I did was modify some build scripts. Looks like there are at least 3 options: 1) leave the files in place 2) move the files to a new folder in flex-sdk repo 3) move the files to flex-utilities Doing #1 appears to be the least work, but if you are going to veto the release then I need to find some other configuration that will make you happy. > >>Another thing to consider: What if the PB compiler stops working on >>Windows or Mac someday due to an OS incompatibility? When we don't own >>the tools and the tools are not under active development, we run a risk. >>Who knows when Adobe would respond. I think PB compiler was last >>shipped in Creative Suite 5.5. >Yes, that's a possibility. >Maybe another way of looking at it would be to consider not the support >for pixel-bender compiler, but rather the support of *PB inside the >FlashPlayer*. >So all the time Adobe supports PB shaders, we will have our >"voted/validated" release of pre-compiled PBJ, that will not evolve, and >that we can continue shipping and its guaranteed to work. >Simply consider them as "frozen legacy Adobe stuff", which it is already >de-facto. Remember, we are an open-SOURCE project so everything we do needs compilation or interpretation. An official Apache release contains source code and instructions to build it and that sort of implies that the tools work. -Alex
