Forget to mention, This release is done with flex-mojos http://flex-mojos.blogspot.com/
VELO On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:47 PM, VELO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We used Adobe's endorsed/recommended way. > > Got a lot of problems... > 1- passing objects between modules. > 2 - some developers bad pratices, like create a new instance of another > module instead use ModuleLoader. > 3 - bad control of what code is from what module. > > And others diary problems. > > Now I compile on FB without optimizing (generating big swf files) and, > when I release using maven I use link-reports on Application and load-extern > on Modules to get smaller swf files. > > > VELO > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM, ben.clinkinbeard < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Separate projects is my preference and seems logical to me but is not > > really endorsed/recommended by Adobe which is disappointing. The > > compiler arguments you mentioned can be used to optimize but > > FlexBuilder is flaky at best using that approach. See > > https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FB-12220 for example. That thread > > also talks a bit about their recommended approach which, again, I am > > not crazy about. > > > > HTH, > > Ben > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Richard Rodseth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I can't seem to find much about the pros and cons of having a separate > > > FlexBuilder project for each module in a modular, extensible app. It > > > seems you lose the Optimize For Application menu option, but can work > > > around that with compiler arguments. Besides, I don't think that's > > > appropriate in my case. > > > > > > Any opinions on best practices? > > > > > > > > > > >
