I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying folks would have to designate that they are installing an SDK only for use in FB? Why couldn't they share an SDK between IDEs?
-Alex On 1/25/17, 7:24 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >Yeah … I know we are hacking this, but I would like to change this to use >the 0.8.0 as a default and to add a build configuration “apply >flashbuilder hacks” to make it output a 4.8.0.8.0. Because I otherwise I >fear that more and more tool vendors will rely on this hack and make us >have to live with it for the next years. I would like to make the >descriptor contain a version 0.8.0 and add some sort of >“<type>flexjs</type>” element to the descriptor to give tool-vendors more >information on the type of Flex SDK > >Chris > >Am 25.01.17, 16:09 schrieb "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com>: > > Not sure I understand. We are already hacking the <version> to be >4.x for > FlashBuilder. > > I would imagine you could add another tag without breaking things. > > -Alex > > On 1/25/17, 7:06 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> >wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I’m currently working on fixing FlexJS support in IntelliJ. I just > >encountered a line of code in which the component sets are selected >based > >on the version-number (if it’s greater than 4.5). I don’t want to go >down > >the path of hacking the version number of flexJS to be something like > >4.8.0.8.0 so I would rather have the version 0.8.0 but a SDK type in >the > >descriptor. Unfortunately I don’t know if adding an element to this >would > >break things. What other alternatives would we have to provide this > >information? > > > >Chris > > >
