No. I’m saying a newer version should be fine. I was just suggesting that if someone is using an older version, they can probably get it to work.
> On Dec 25, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are you saying we should use something older? > > Currently, we say Helios is the version to use, primarily because that's what > was used by the Adobe team at the time the code base was donated to Apache, > and partially out of concern of being able to generate the Flash Builder > plugin that required Java 6. I could not find information indicating that > Helios could be patched to support Java 8. > > If we pick an older version, at least one of us needs to use that oldest > version. So far, the latest Eclipse is working where Helios did not. > > -Alex > > On 12/24/18, 11:54 PM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m using 4.7.2 with no apparent problems. > > I’m pretty sure that anything 4.4 or later should work. That’s 4.5 years > old. I can’t imagine why someone would want to stick with such an old version > of Eclipse, but it looks like it’s possible to add support for Java 8 in even > older versions.[1] > > Harbs > > > [1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEclipse_(software)%23Releases&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9b0ecabb23aa49e8fc6108d66a3e24d2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636813212469048607&sdata=uIY%2FjY7d7mU%2Fi5ZdoYXPpzau4MYC78HQTy%2BFVuiQ8vY%3D&reserved=0 > > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEclipse_(software)%23Releases&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9b0ecabb23aa49e8fc6108d66a3e24d2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636813212469048607&sdata=uIY%2FjY7d7mU%2Fi5ZdoYXPpzau4MYC78HQTy%2BFVuiQ8vY%3D&reserved=0> > >> On Dec 25, 2018, at 9:21 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Looks like requiring Java 8 might result in a requirement to upgrade >> Eclipse. I'm going to try the latest Eclipse. Speak up if you can think of >> a reason we should use an older one. >> >> -Alex >> >> On 12/24/18, 12:01 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’m fine with it too. I’ve been using FB with 1.8 for a while. >> >> >> >> In my opinion, we’re not in the business of forcing anyone to do anything. >> Options are a good thing. >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2018 9:20:58 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Royale Java versions >> >> +1. We have new IDE Moonshine and VSCode. Maybe it's force people who using >> still FB to finally drop that IDE to some modern one. >> >> Thanks, Piotr >> >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 8:15 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Royale is currently using Google Closure Compiler from June 2017. There >>> is a bug in that version and even the latest Closure Compiler that is >>> blocking release-mode module loading. Google appears to be willing to fix >>> the bug, so that got me started on upgrading the Closure Compiler we bundle >>> to the latest release so we can quickly test out any fix for the module >>> issue. Historically, when we upgrade Closure Compiler, there are changes >>> we need to make in our code to get Royale to work again, and it is >>> definitely true this time. However, it appears that Closure Compiler is >>> now dependent on a version of Guava that requires Java 8. We currently >>> allow Java 7 for Royale. Any objections to dropping Java 7? There are >>> hacks to upgrade Flash Builder to run on Java 8, so that shouldn't be an >>> issue. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> -Alex >>> >>> >> >> > > >
