Drop support for Flash Player 9

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mikechambers on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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?  

Original comment by retrogam...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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.

Original comment by lukeba...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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.

Original comment by oiz...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:20

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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 
... :)

Original comment by katopz on 21 Sep 2009 at 5:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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.

Original comment by mitsuru....@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 6:27

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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.

Original comment by mikechambers on 21 Sep 2009 at 7:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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?

Original comment by dittgen@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 7:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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)

Original comment by neuropro...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 7:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Definitely branch it.

Original comment by mdw1...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:48

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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

Original comment by troy.gil...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:55

[GoogleCodeExporter]

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.

Original comment by mitsuru....@gmail.com on 23 Sep 2009 at 7:08