Hi Alex, Yep, I thought about that too at the begining but then, given my changes was not structural, I thought it was a good thing (less confusion, better code reading, etc...), the bad one is I committed it along with the fix.
Anyway, maybe I'll be the one who will merge the upcoming one, maybe not, in any cases, it could be a good thing to do a clean up after if it is not already done in the new one. Thanks, Frédéric THOMAS > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: RE : FDB has old code ? > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:45:53 +0000 > > Fred, > > You might want to hold off on code clean up on FDB. Not cleaning it up > will make it a bit easier to compare the new version of FDB that should be > cleared for donation soon (with workers support) against the existing one. > Then you can clean up afterwards. > > -Alex > > On 1/27/14 2:44 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I just committed the fix along with some code clean up [1] and attached > >the fixed fdb.jar [2] for testing purpose before the 4.12 release. > > > >Enjoy, > >Frédéric THOMAS > > > >PS: Sorry for having mixed the fix with the code clean up though. > > > >[1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34062 > >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12625347/fdb.jar > > > >> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:51:41 +0100 > >> From: a...@binitie.com > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: RE : FDB has old code ? > >> > >> Je te souhaite mieux > >> > >> On Fri 24 Jan 2014 15:44:44 WAT, webdoublefx wrote: > >> > Thanks Scott for having tried :-) > >> > > >> > Btw Im sick today, will propably commit on sunday, the time to clean > >>up things > >> > > >> > > >> > Envoyé depuis un mobile Samsung > >> > > >> > <div>-------- Message d'origine --------</div><div>De : Scott Talsma > >><sc...@talsma.tv> </div><div>Date :24/01/2014 14:26 (GMT+00:00) > >></div><div>A : dev@flex.apache.org </div><div>Objet : Re: FDB has old > >>code ? </div><div> > >> > </div> > >> > I think SWD is only relevant for ActionScript 1.0 and 2.0. Flash > >>files > >> > with debugging turned on would produce a swd file. > >> > > >> > When debugging was toggled on in the Flash Player (and a debugging > >>swf was > >> > loaded), a call for the swf's swd would be made. > >> > > >> > I just did a small test, creating a debuggable Flash file; when I > >>compile > >> > it for AS2.0, the swd file is generated; when targeting AS3.0, no swd > >>file > >> > is created. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I don't know the code that well, but the swd part always surprised > >>me. > >> >> Old flash swfs had swd files, but I didn't think Flex SWFs did. > >> >> > >> >> On 1/23/14 9:43 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > >>wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> > >> >>> I noticed some old code, unused code path, old coding pratices in > >>FDB and > >> >>> more important, it is very slow relative to the FB debugging > >>experience > >> >>> (FDB: 1mn30s FB: 8s on my large company app to stop at the 1st > >>breakpoint > >> >>> set in my runtime module), after a talk with Alexander and having > >>dug > >> >>> into the code and done some experiments, I would conclude the > >> >>> waitForMetaData() function is not needed anymore, this function > >>basically > >> >>> was waiting until each swf was loading info.isPopulated() up to 80 * > >> >>> 250ms = ~20s to be sure the metadata of the Function infos have been > >> >>> processed, from my experiements, there's no needs anymore for such a > >> >>> wait, somewhere else in the code, I can read, "if we are a avm+ > >>engine > >> >>> then we don't wait for the swd to load" and "added by mmorearty on > >>9/5/05 > >> >>> for RSL debugging" in DManager.java when getting the Message > >> >>> DMessage.InSwfInfo it considers the swf is completely loaded > >> >>> info.setPopulated(); > >> >>> > >> >>> I don't pretend to understand everything in those classes but my > >>guesses > >> >>> meet my experiments. > >> >>> Now, the waiting time in FDB / IntelliJ is the same than in FB, > >>meaning > >> >>> divided by more than 11 in my case. > >> >>> > >> >>> Does someone know more about the player mechanism to populate the > >> >>> Function metadatas ? > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm about to clean my changes, open a ticket and propose this > >>modified > >> >>> FDB for testing, any objections ? > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> Frédéric THOMAS > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> *aYo* > >> www.ayobinitie.com > >> http://mrbinitie.blogspot.com > >> > > >
