Comments on: New Flash player, and also a Flex Builder patch http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/ Mike Morearty's blog Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:15:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Ludwig Van Nostrand http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-19639 Ludwig Van Nostrand Wed, 02 May 2007 14:28:34 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-19639 I have to say I don't think you guys are doing the level of quality one would expect from a professional software company. There are all sorts of clunky bugs in FB2 like the inability to set the number of undo levels (yes, you can set it in the prefs but it doesn't work), the debugger choking issues requiring restart, and now this. I agree that the version number thing is poorly thought out. I have to say I don’t think you guys are doing the level of quality one would expect from a professional software company. There are all sorts of clunky bugs in FB2 like the inability to set the number of undo levels (yes, you can set it in the prefs but it doesn’t work), the debugger choking issues requiring restart, and now this.

I agree that the version number thing is poorly thought out.

]]> By: mike http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-19324 mike Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:09:01 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-19324 Yes, same player that comes with Flash CS3. Yes, same player that comes with Flash CS3.

]]> By: Muzak http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-19300 Muzak Thu, 26 Apr 2007 05:52:38 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-19300 Is this the same player that comes with Flash CS3? Is this the same player that comes with Flash CS3?

]]> By: mike http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-18928 mike Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:11:55 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-18928 pan69: Ah, I see what you're saying. I imagine it was probably an oversight that the Linux player wasn't included in the fp9_archive.zip and fp9_debug_archive.zip alongside the Windows and Mac players. I'll pass on the word to see if that can get fixed. pan69: Ah, I see what you’re saying. I imagine it was probably an oversight that the Linux player wasn’t included in the fp9_archive.zip and fp9_debug_archive.zip alongside the Windows and Mac players. I’ll pass on the word to see if that can get fixed.

]]> By: pan69 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-18736 pan69 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:37:02 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-18736 Mike: The archive I'm refering to is actually on the Flash Player archive page: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_14266 and doesn't include the Linux players, only the ones for Windows and Mac. That is what I was refering to as "quite interessting" since those archives include all different versions of all major release players except Linux for Flash Player 9. Doesn't the Linux player needs to be archived? The archive for Flash Player 7 does include the the Linux version (r25) and even the Flash Player 7 for Solaris (r53). And since we're on the topic anyway, I actually do have a stand alone Flash Player 6 for Linux as well which is also not part of the archive for Flash Player 6. I'm not trying to be diffecult or anything, just noticing stuff ;) Thanks! Mike: The archive I’m refering to is actually on the Flash Player archive page: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_14266 and doesn’t include the Linux players, only the ones for Windows and Mac. That is what I was refering to as "quite interessting" since those archives include all different versions of all major release players except Linux for Flash Player 9. Doesn’t the Linux player needs to be archived?

The archive for Flash Player 7 does include the the Linux version (r25) and even the Flash Player 7 for Solaris (r53). And since we’re on the topic anyway, I actually do have a stand alone Flash Player 6 for Linux as well which is also not part of the archive for Flash Player 6.

I’m not trying to be diffecult or anything, just noticing stuff ;)

Thanks!

]]> By: Ray Greenwell http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-18721 Ray Greenwell Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:18:27 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-18721 Regarding 2.0.2: I think a mistake was made. I don't care how little the difference is, it's a fact that it's different. People want to be able to look at a version number and know if they've got the latest and greatest. You now have two distinct versions of Flex 2.0.1 floating out there, with no way to tell the difference except by looking at a binary file in the installation. To say that it's only necessary for people using CS3 is silly, as someone could be writing a flex app that loads other SWFs in. As soon as one of those is CS3-made, someone who didn't think they'd need the update finds that they do need it, only they might have a hard time finding that if they simply check their version number against the latest. This is the second time I've been utterly confused at "your" (the flash team's) use of version numbers. The flash 9 player has seen the same version field (the x in 9.0.x.0) updated for both API changes and bugfixes! Regarding 2.0.2:

I think a mistake was made. I don’t care how little the difference is, it’s a fact that it’s different. People want to be able to look at a version number and know if they’ve got the latest and greatest. You now have two distinct versions of Flex 2.0.1 floating out there, with no way to tell the difference except by looking at a binary file in the installation.

To say that it’s only necessary for people using CS3 is silly, as someone could be writing a flex app that loads other SWFs in. As soon as one of those is CS3-made, someone who didn’t think they’d need the update finds that they do need it, only they might have a hard time finding that if they simply check their version number against the latest.

This is the second time I’ve been utterly confused at "your" (the flash team’s) use of version numbers. The flash 9 player has seen the same version field (the x in 9.0.x.0) updated for both API changes and bugfixes!

]]> By: mike http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-18719 mike Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:10:28 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-18719 pan69: Actually, on reading your comment again, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Where did you see fp9_debug_archive.zip? I don't see that anywhere. pan69: Actually, on reading your comment again, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Where did you see fp9_debug_archive.zip? I don’t see that anywhere.

]]> By: mike http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-18717 mike Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:04:15 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-18717 Right -- as Flash Player Product Manager Emmy Huang wrote ( http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2007/04/player_9_update.cfm ), "Where is the Linux version? This update was a result of the need to fix these few CS3 issues, and the honest answer is that the Linux player doesn't ship with the products so we chose to keep it on its original update schedule. The Linux update is still being worked on, we're enabling full-screen and wmode as promised, and it is still on for later this year." Right — as Flash Player Product Manager Emmy Huang wrote ( http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2007/04/player_9_update.cfm ), "Where is the Linux version? This update was a result of the need to fix these few CS3 issues, and the honest answer is that the Linux player doesn’t ship with the products so we chose to keep it on its original update schedule. The Linux update is still being worked on, we’re enabling full-screen and wmode as promised, and it is still on for later this year."

]]> By: pan69 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-18716 pan69 Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:44:28 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-18716 What's quite interesting is that the Flash Player 9 for Linux is not included in the Flash Player 9 debug archive (fp9_debug_archive.zip) but in a completely separate archive (flash_player_9_linux_dev.tar.gz). What’s quite interesting is that the Flash Player 9 for Linux is not included in the Flash Player 9 debug archive (fp9_debug_archive.zip) but in a completely separate archive (flash_player_9_linux_dev.tar.gz).

]]> By: mike http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/comment-page-1/#comment-18713 mike Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:09:10 +0000 http://www.morearty.com/blog/2007/04/16/new-flash-player-and-also-a-flex-builder-patch/#comment-18713 That's a good question, Ray. I asked one of the people who was more directly involved in it than I was, and this is what I was told: "Ah... that definitely came up. Patches and hotfixes are usually targeted at a very specific issue and aren't generally large enough to warrant a full dot release. These fixes are only useful to people using CS3 so it's not generally applicable to all our Flex Builder and Flex developers (I guess with the caveat that anyone who accidentally installs the new release player will get bitten) so we decided to do a patch instead of a hotfix or updater." That’s a good question, Ray. I asked one of the people who was more directly involved in it than I was, and this is what I was told:

"Ah… that definitely came up. Patches and hotfixes are usually targeted at a very specific issue and aren’t generally large enough to warrant a full dot release. These fixes are only useful to people using CS3 so it’s not generally applicable to all our Flex Builder and Flex developers (I guess with the caveat that anyone who accidentally installs the new release player will get bitten) so we decided to do a patch instead of a hotfix or updater."

]]>