Paul,
I changed version to 4.6.0 in the ..\sdks\4.9.1\flex-sdk-description.xml
file and design view works just fine. But I don't bank on it all the
time. Eventually, like Nick, i'll have to re-train my brain and stop using
Design view. Really a bummer they stopped working on that, it's great fo
Paul,
Design View is no longer supported for anything that we (Apache) produce.
Flash Builder 4.6 and below tied the specific SDK version with a special
module within the IDE that was used to render the DV. We don't have the
ability to patch FB4.6 (esp. since FB 4.7 replaced it, and no longer
su
On 7/31/2013 12:58 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
"eclipse becomes violently drunk"
Yes, that is an actual technical term :-)
yeah when eclipse starts belting out this tune, its time to shut it down ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUeKDtMV1gA
"eclipse becomes violently drunk"
Yes, that is an actual technical term :-)
On 7/30/2013 10:17 PM, Chris Martin wrote:
I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file to
say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will forceably
say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
trying to get an eye out for a
I use FB 4.6 and I actually have to modify the flex-sdk-description file to
say 4.6.0 because when it detects newer versions of Flex, it will forceably
say that the version of flex is not compatible with design view. Still
trying to get an eye out for an IDE that supports a design view so I can
mo
No harm done, I'm sure. And I want re-iterate that I strongly agree
that we shouldn't 'fake' version numbers to work around this issue. A
simple fix is available (changing to single digit version numbering)
and I'm sure we would never fix one IDE by knowingly breaking another.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 2
On 29.07.2013 12:43, Erik de Bruin wrote:
Alexander,
I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
best the solution that cripples Flash B
I concur as I use fb and fdt
aYo
www.ayobinitie.com
mrbinitie.blogspot.com
On 29 Jul 2013 09:44, "Erik de Bruin" wrote:
> Alexander,
>
> I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
> to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
> producer of IntelliJ
Alexander,
I appreciate your input and I agree that we shouldn't break other IDEs
to fix a FB issue. I would however, as a representative of the
producer of IntelliJ IDEA, be careful to publicly state that you like
best the solution that cripples Flash Builder.
EdB
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:33
On 27.07.2013 2:03, Alex Harui wrote:
For #2: The FB code is assuming that versions in flex-sdk-description.xml
are single digits, so 4.9 parses but 4.10 does not. I'm not sure there is
a way for us to hack FB with a patch, and I don't imagine I can get Adobe
to respond in the timeframe we want.
OK, found time to look. The working SWF is not using mx.data.DataList
which is why it won't throw the verify error. Somehow, when you are
regenerating the data classes, the data wizard decided that it didn't need
DataList and other LCDS classes.
If that works for you, great, but for those who mu
I thought I was alone in finding 4.10 confusing. I think it might be a
good idea to call this 4.9.5 or 5.0
On 27 Jul 2013 07:20, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> >> po
Yes I will, if I can help anymore just let me
Regards,
Swen van zanten
Compuniek Bedrijfsautomatisering
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 27 jul. 2013 om 19:22 heeft Alex Harui het volgende
geschreven:
> OK, thanks. Can you keep those links up for a couple of days?
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
>
OK, thanks. Can you keep those links up for a couple of days?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 7/27/13 2:06 AM, "Swen van Zanten" wrote:
>Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui het
>volgende geschreven:
>
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>>
3. LCDS customers will receive verif
Op 27 jul. 2013, om 06:20 heeft Alex Harui het volgende
geschreven:
>
>
> On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>>> 3. LCDS customers will receive verify errors when using mx.data.DataItem
>>> and users with custom IList implementations will need to upgrade their
>>> implementations.
>The parsing reg exp pasted in another thread doesn't look to be the issue.
> >
> > It contains \\d+ which match for more than one digit. and would parse
> >4.10.0 with that expression as "4.10.0", ".10.0" and ".0".
> OK, I'll keep looking then. I haven't tried it myself. Are folks who are
> hit
On 7/26/13 5:54 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> +1 to reverting the change. There could be thirdparty components for
>>which
>> the source code may not be readily accessible. This could be a big
>> problem.
>Not really there's is a work around ie revert the change in the SDK and
>recomp
On 7/26/13 5:51 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
>> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
>> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
>But your fix fixes this right?
Yes
>
>>
Hi,
> +1 to reverting the change. There could be thirdparty components for which
> the source code may not be readily accessible. This could be a big
> problem.
Not really there's is a work around ie revert the change in the SDK and
recompile. As everyone has access to the source code they pa
Hi,
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
But your fix fixes this right?
> 2. The default template for new projects in Flash Builder i
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
>
> 1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
> population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
> folks on our
Hi, that issue is issue #3 in my list. Can you provide more information
about how you fixed it? I would think you would have to swap out 4.10.0
swcs for 4.9.x swcs.
On 7/26/13 3:19 PM, "Swen van Zanten" wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I had this [1] today on a new project alsoŠ I guess this is a bug too..
Hi All,
I had this [1] today on a new project also… I guess this is a bug too.. Or a fb
bug.. With 4.9.1 I haven't had this problem.
The same way i fixed this with a new project as I did with a old project.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33631
Regards,
SWEN VAN ZANTEN
Hoofdstra
Hi,
At this point, I think we have three significant issues in the release.
1. Folks using ResourceModules via flashvars will get exceptions. The
population affected is small, but enough folks use them that already two
folks on our dev list have said they are affected.
2. The default template fo
25 matches
Mail list logo
