Drop support for Flash Player 9

[darronschall]

Originally filed by mikechambers on 2009-09-21T05:05:43

One thing we could consider doing is dropping support for Flash Player 9. This would allows us to
take advantage of Vectors within some of the libraries, which could give some performance
improvements.

Before deciding to do this, we should do a pass through the code, and see if we would get any
major improvements.

Thoughts?

[darronschall]

Updated by retrogamer4ever on 2009-09-21T05:11:19

I say it's a good idea only if it really brings improvements and maybe perhaps keep a
legacy branch that has the flash player 9 support?

[darronschall]

Updated by lukebayes on 2009-09-21T05:18:37

Hey Mike,

Please fork or branch so that the legacy code is left accessible and maintainable.... We're still doing the
occasional AS2 project, and I imagine there will be people stuck with FP9 requirements for years to come.

[darronschall]

Updated by oizys0 on 2009-09-21T05:20:06

If you notice some major improvements within a specific class, consider branching it
on a per-class basis.. if a single class only gets a minor improvement but another
gets a major improvement, maintaining the branch for the minor improvement one isn't
worth it.

[darronschall]

Updated by katopz on 2009-09-21T05:21:17

for me...i think better separate as fp9 and fp10 in trunk
we did it in away3d, and also jiglib (i just add fp10 today for jiglib)
thb, we love Vector typed but client still love fp9 via IE6 ! ;p

another pros for separate fp9/fp10 is we can use them for speed comparison too ... :)

[darronschall]

Updated by mitsuru.takeuchi on 2009-09-21T06:27:47

I agree with katopz opinion, that separate as fp9 and fp10.
Some developers may have some trouble, but I think it is nonsense not to create fp10 version of corelib for fp9.

We will be easier to induce to fp10 if clients have many benefits by using fp10. So I think corelib should be
separate as fp9 and fp10.

[darronschall]

Updated by mikechambers on 2009-09-21T07:05:41

One thing to keep in mind, is that whatever we do, it has to be easy to maintain (as we have few people working
on the project).

So, I dont want to maintain two branches / versions and releases.

[darronschall]

Updated by dittgen on 2009-09-21T07:12:57

This leads to the question: Is it possible to test for the FP version and offer
different implementations just in one version? In Javascript you can check if method
do exist and react otherwise in another way. Would this be possible with AS3 or would
code that's only supported by FP10 break up when compiling for FP9?

[darronschall]

Updated by [email protected] on 2009-09-21T07:24:57

If you can't support 2 versions, leave the FP9 version as it is and go for FP10. We
need the speed (and good excuses to convince clients to go for FP10)

[darronschall]

Updated by mdw1980 on 2009-09-21T13:48:15

Definitely branch it.

[darronschall]

Updated by troy.gilbert on 2009-09-21T13:55:46

My clients are still requiring FP9 for a lot of stuff, so definitely keep a branch around for bug fixes.

[darronschall]

Updated by mitsuru.takeuchi on 2009-09-23T07:08:45

If you don't want to maintain 2 branches, I want you to maintain FP10 version and leave FP9 version as previous
version.
The reason is:

1. Maybe FP9 (this means, "previous Flash Player version") version of as3corelib will be added new features.
2. I want to know the merit of new features.
3. Because as3corelib is under new BSD license, other developers can develop previous version of Flash Player if
   needed.