On 8/2/16, 4:37 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>What is a good location for testing out the 0.7 binary? I want to test
>out
>the npm installer.
Nightly build?
http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-falcon/lastSuccessfulBuil
d/artifact/
http://apach
What is a good location for testing out the 0.7 binary? I want to test out
the npm installer.
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There's a couple of licensing/policy issues outstanding AFAIK [1][2][3],
> also Im not sure if the issues with FlatUI [3] or e
Hi,
There's a couple of licensing/policy issues outstanding AFAIK [1][2][3], also
Im not sure if the issues with FlatUI [3] or encode/decode UTF8 [4] have been
resolved or the possible GPL/MPL licensing issue [6]
Is there anything else I’ve missed?
Thanks,
Justin
1.https://lists.apache.org/th
Got it.
I guess I didn’t realize that distinction when I started on this.
On Aug 2, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 8/2/16, 12:51 PM, "Harbs" wrote:
>
>> If it works (and has better performance), I’m OK with leaving the CSS
>> family of objects as subclasses of the Flash ones.
On 8/2/16, 12:51 PM, "Harbs" wrote:
>If it works (and has better performance), I’m OK with leaving the CSS
>family of objects as subclasses of the Flash ones. It looks like you left
>UIButtonBase as a wrapper rather than a subclass of SimpleButton. Is that
>an oversight, or was it done purposel
If it works (and has better performance), I’m OK with leaving the CSS family of
objects as subclasses of the Flash ones. It looks like you left UIButtonBase as
a wrapper rather than a subclass of SimpleButton. Is that an oversight, or was
it done purposely?
I’ll let you know if this approach br
I forgot to mention: the only casualty of the refactor so far was
TextItemRenderer. It was designed to be a default renderer on the Flash
side and directly inject a TextField as the item renderer for things like
DataGrid. Because a TextField's parent is DisplayObjectContainer but
components are e
On 7/30/16, 11:05 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>I will probably try to code up the other option and see where
>the pain points are. There might be some killer issue. I'd like to avoid
>wrapping the CSSShape and friends.
Well, I just pushed to the refactor-sprite branch changes to get
DataBindingEx
Fine.
We can discuss whether to have a separate DivApplication or roll it all into
Application separately.
On Aug 2, 2016, at 10:00 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 8/2/16, 11:54 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>
>> Once an Application gets hung on a div it’s going to have all those
>> properties (unless
On 8/2/16, 11:54 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>Once an Application gets hung on a div it’s going to have all those
>properties (unless it’s on the view).
>
>The reason we made it IUIBase was because addElement() was expecting the
>parent to be one.
OK, in my changes, addElement only expects the parent t
Once an Application gets hung on a div it’s going to have all those properties
(unless it’s on the view).
The reason we made it IUIBase was because addElement() was expecting the parent
to be one.
On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:16 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> I was merging stuff and noticed that Application
I was merging stuff and noticed that Application got changed to be an
IUIBase. I agree that's tempting, and DivApplication or whatever would
need to be an IUIBase, but IMO, Application doesn't really behave like
other child components. I saw that stubs were added for alpha, visible,
x, y that don
Awesome Chris!
also, I think it would be great to make 0.7.0 a reality
thanks!
Carlos
2016-08-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui :
> Peter is trying to fix a few more issues in the examples.
>
> Have the folks who plan to vote done their usual scrutiny on the nightly?
> If not, it is probably ti
Peter is trying to fix a few more issues in the examples.
Have the folks who plan to vote done their usual scrutiny on the nightly?
If not, it is probably time to do that.
-Alex
On 8/2/16, 7:26 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>Sure. 0.7.0 is pretty good (and getting better every day).
>
>If we make the rel
Sure. 0.7.0 is pretty good (and getting better every day).
If we make the release official, we can create some pretty good buzz for it.
On Aug 2, 2016, at 3:34 PM, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Well I have to admit ... I think I'm happy with the current state. We
> actually got a lot further than I
On 8/2/16, 12:02 AM, "Christofer Dutz" wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>
>I don't think we should make ASDocs an application. If we would, Google
>could no longer index the online resources. Currently if I need info on
>an API I search in google and it usually directs me to an Adobe page
>where I can read i
Well I have to admit ... I think I'm happy with the current state. We actually
got a lot further than I expected for the 0.7.0
ASDoc and other stuff will come ... but in later versions. I currently
desperately have to do some coding :-)
Chris
Von: Harbs
Gese
Awesome!
I guess we should aim to have a 0.7.0 release out before then. It’s really time
to do a release anyway.
Harbs
On Aug 2, 2016, at 1:36 PM, Christofer Dutz wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I just got notified that my proposal of a talk on FlexJS got accepted (Title:
> Apache FlexJS - JavaScript E
Hi,
I just got notified that my proposal of a talk on FlexJS got accepted (Title:
Apache FlexJS - JavaScript Entwicklung in Flex). It's going to be at
Solutions.Hamburg on 08.09.2016 (8th of September for those of you with the
silly date format ;-) ) (http://solutions.hamburg/)
[http://soluti
Hi Alex,
I don't think we should make ASDocs an application. If we would, Google could
no longer index the online resources. Currently if I need info on an API I
search in google and it usually directs me to an Adobe page where I can read it.
Another thing is, in the current ASDocs I remember
20 matches
Mail list logo
