I’ll be happy to change it back to source if others disagree…
On Aug 10, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Harbs wrote:
> I tried to change that in the examples. I obviously missed some.
>
> I changed “source” to “url”. I think that makes more sense.
>
> On Aug 10, 2016, at 12:16 AM, Peter Ent wrote:
>
>>
I tried to change that in the examples. I obviously missed some.
I changed “source” to “url”. I think that makes more sense.
On Aug 10, 2016, at 12:16 AM, Peter Ent wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've gotten a copy of the refactor_sprite branch. While everything builds
> (need to skip the tests, though), m
Hi,
I've gotten a copy of the refactor_sprite branch. While everything builds (need
to skip the tests, though), most of the examples won't build due to the
"source" property changing for Image.
Do y'all have an estimate when you might resolve this?
Thanks,
Peter
On 8/9/16, 1:44 PM, "yishayw" wrote:
>So Piotrz was right. When I remove GCL.swc and js.swc from the poject it
>compiles and runs on the flash side. The problem is we need it for the JS
>side.
>
Framework SWCs are written with platform-specific code and are compiled
for JS with GCL.swc and js.
So Piotrz was right. When I remove GCL.swc and js.swc from the poject it
compiles and runs on the flash side. The problem is we need it for the JS
side.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Error-in-flash-on-svg-refactor-branch-tp54426p544
On 8/9/16, 8:35 AM, "Peter Ent" wrote:
>I don't think a model/view/controller is too much bloat. Don't
>underestimate the value of consistency. Scrollbars, borders, etc. don't
>have to be there as long as there is a way for an app developer to
>manipulate them, which can be done with styles. Mo
That’s fine. We’re long overdue on a release.
I would like to merge it into develop as soon as we cut the release branch
though.
On Aug 9, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>>>
>>> I’d like to get to the point where we can merge the sprite-refactor
>>> branch back into develop before we sta
I agree for the most part of grain of salt, but Microsoft stated they will only
update the latest version of IE now[1]. That's the only real reason I brought
it up.
"Beginning January 12, 2016, only the most current version of Internet Explorer
available for a supported operating system will
On 8/9/16, 8:59 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>BTW:
>
>If we look at getting rid of goog.events, we might want to look at
>getting rid of goog.inherits and goog.base as well.
IMO, goog.events is separate from goog.inherits and goog.base. Erik would
know best, but I think the GCC optimizer understands go
Historically, market share reports like this have not been accurate for
large enterprises and schools which often standardize on something one or
two versions back. So, I tend to be conservative about what versions we
need to support.
-Alex
On 8/9/16, 9:16 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" wrote:
>Just
Is DataBindingExample building and running? If so, then can you comment
stuff out of your app until it builds and runs?
Thanks,
-Alex
On 8/9/16, 8:33 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>We’re using Falcon from commit 04d28a8 on August 1.
>
>(The toString() stuff from the later commits broke things too badly.)
Just a thought, I think at this point if we are still worrying about IE we
should only worry about IE11[2] since even IE9 [1] is in heavy decline.
[1]
https://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=3&qpaf=&qpcustom=Microsoft+Internet+Explorer+9.0&qpcustomb=0
[2]
https://www.netmarketshare.co
BTW:
If we look at getting rid of goog.events, we might want to look at getting rid
of goog.inherits and goog.base as well.
For IE9+, I think we can use Object.create() instead.[1]
[1]https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Inheritance_and_the_prototype_chain
On Aug 9, 2016, at 6:
You do get an error, but the error loses the stack. All you have is the
function which threw the event, but you have no trace of the object which
handled the event (and caused the error).
I have no idea why this is so. I assume it has to do with “callback hell” and
the callbacks which the event
I don't think a model/view/controller is too much bloat. Don't
underestimate the value of consistency. Scrollbars, borders, etc. don't
have to be there as long as there is a way for an app developer to
manipulate them, which can be done with styles. Models and controllers are
different though, I th
We’re using Falcon from commit 04d28a8 on August 1.
(The toString() stuff from the later commits broke things too badly.)
On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Before I take the time to try this, can I assume you are using a
> flex-falcon build later than July 29?
>
> On 8/9/16, 6:42
IMO, we don't want to bloat the JS just for consistency sake. The SWF
side will have lots of hidden parts for borders, scrollbars, etc. For
many components, most folks will only interact with the wrapping component
(Checkbox, Button, Label, etc). So most folks won't know that Image has a
model/
Before I take the time to try this, can I assume you are using a
flex-falcon build later than July 29?
On 8/9/16, 6:42 AM, "yishayw" wrote:
>No console output.
>
>It's a simple self-contained app.
>
>https://paste.apache.org/sTE8
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://apache-flex-d
On 8/9/16, 3:15 AM, "Harbs" wrote:
>The way stopImmediatePropagation is being handled in FlexJS is like this:
>
> try {
>return org.apache.flex.events.EventDispatcher.base(this,
>'dispatchEvent', event);
> } catch (e) {
>if (e.name != "stopImmediatePropagation")
> throw e;
> }
>
I tried recompiling XML using the develop branch and pasting XML.swc on top
of the sprite-refactor swcs but that didn't help.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Error-in-flash-on-svg-refactor-branch-tp54426p54434.html
Sent from the Apac
Apart from the sdk my swcs are the same whether I use the develop or
sprite-refactor branch, and in the develop branch there's no problem.
FWIW, I'm referencing GCL.swc, js.swc on top of the SDK swcs.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS
I think you need to be consistent for models and views and follow the
pattern. Every component should have a model, view, and controller unless
having such a thing on all platforms makes no sense.
Imagine I'm an application writer and I want to make a component with an
image that displays differen
No console output.
It's a simple self-contained app.
https://paste.apache.org/sTE8
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Error-in-flash-on-svg-refactor-branch-tp54426p54431.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archiv
No other console output before that error?
Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-- Original message--
From: yishayw
Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 2:01 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org;
Subject:[FlexJS] Error in flash on svg-refactor branch
I'm getting this message:
VerifyError: Error #1079:
I think it might be caused by the changes I made to XML. I out the COMPILE::JS
conditional on the class rather than the individual functions. I’m not sure why
that’s a problem though…
On Aug 9, 2016, at 12:29 PM, piotrz wrote:
> Hi Yishay,
>
> Maybe you have some additional swc in your projec
The way stopImmediatePropagation is being handled in FlexJS is like this:
try {
return org.apache.flex.events.EventDispatcher.base(this, 'dispatchEvent',
event);
} catch (e) {
if (e.name != "stopImmediatePropagation")
throw e;
}
This is proving to be very painful because almo
Hi Yishay,
Maybe you have some additional swc in your project. Air swc which is not
required in this type of project.
Piotr
-
Apache Flex PMC
piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Error-in-flash-on-svg-refact
I'm getting this message:
VerifyError: Error #1079: Native methods are not allowed in loaded code.
In develop branch I don't see the error. Any ideas?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/FlexJS-Error-in-flash-on-svg-refactor-branch-tp54426.htm
OK.
I really don’t see how Image could be extensible — especially a raw tag
on the HTML side. The possible options that can be used for img are very
limited.[1] Even advanced CSS does not have very good browser support.[2]
Now, I do see how an Image component could be extensible, but that woul
29 matches
Mail list logo
