As it currently stands I would vote for #3 of the proposed list of choices. Leaning more to hide than remove. Simply in the interests of pushing out a release and allowing users to actually get a chance to use the updated version of TDF. There is clearly a demand for it amongst users. It would be nice to have all of the 3rd party pieces loaded in and totally functioning but right now it's currently blocking the release. If TDF gets released momentum is gained or at least retained and buys time to release an update in a week or 2 or 3 that addresses the 3rd party issues. I just don't see it as an all or nothing proposition. Release early and release often. Right?
Anyway, that's just my thoughts on it right now. It's late (really late) here right now. Perhaps after my coffee in the morning I'll see it different. Until then.... Neil -----Original Message----- From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl] Sent: November-07-14 12:05 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] TourDeFlex 1.2 RC 0 How about: "ask the third parties?" They must have an opinion on the "blocking" status of this issue ... EdB > Plus, we now have more options for them to consider. IMO, the several > options are: > > 1) Ship the current source without documenting a known defect, which > is that third party content may not position and size correctly, > and/or despite the RELEASE_NOTES mentioning 3rd party support, there > won't be 3rd party examples on the flex.a.o TDF site. > 2) Document the known defect > 3) Remove/hide the 3rd party feature and remove its mention from the > RELEASE_NOTES and JIRA. > 4) Wait a bit longer and decide on how to properly load 3rd party SWFs > then implement it > 5) Change the implementation to link to 3rd party sites instead of > loading their SWFs.
