That's just a bad package name. Code that relies on playerglobal.swc
file name is still in use in Apache Flex SDK 4.12.
On 02.06.2014 13:15, Christofer Dutz wrote:
Well I'll do a little exploration ...
But as you posted in one of your last posts, it looks as if this is comming
from some flex2 compiler.
Could It be possible that the problems of hard-coded names would only affect Flex 2
Applications built with Apache Flex? I mean 3.7.1 seems to have been released on 04. Jun
2010 at this time a first Flex 4 release has been out and I remember most people doing
Flex 3 and a lot of people still doing Flex 2 development, Flex 4 was only done by the
"Early Adopters" ;-)
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Alexander Doroshko <alexander.doros...@jetbrains.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juni 2014 10:58
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: Is/Was there a requirement for the playerglobal.swc having
to be named exactly this way?
On 02.06.2014 12:41, Christofer Dutz wrote:
Well I am currently experimenting with the Flexmojos Build, but it seems the
compiler is producing swfs and swcs correctly even if playerglobal is called
playerglobal-13.0.swc ...
Marvin thought so too with Flexmojos 3.7 release and had to release
3.7.1 update in few days :) See [1] for details. I don't have a sample
to reproduce that problem, but probably user description will be enough.
If there are parts in the SDK that have this hard-coded name, would it be
reasonable to refactor these?
Rhetorical question :) Of course compiler without SWC name assumption is
better. I didn't explore Falcon code, may be the problem is already
solved there. But as for now, most people use legacy compiler.
I would certainly prefer to omit some maven hacks form the plugin. Especially
when thinking about the plugin rewrite I have setup,
Chris
Alex
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/flex-mojos%40googlegroups.com/msg06489.html
