Speaking of that - I've always wondered, is the gzip decompression handled
by the browser, or by the Flash player? I've assumed it was the browser
(HTTP Compression, right?). That being the case, aren't there some
browsers
which don't have gzip support, or are they all dead?
It's
An architect I closely work with always says: ‘Each extra component
introduces complexity’. I think that is true. Each component ‘in the
middle’ makes a system harder to understand, debug, maintain, deploy and
requires an additional level of competence. Unless it has true added
value,
one
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Evert | Collab
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
10:43 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
You are forgetting that if a request takes half the
time to complete, it
needs
setting up the server
side of a webservice as well.
Cheers,
Franck
From:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank williams
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
8:19 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice
:23 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hi Bjorn,There are no plans to add AMF3 support into WebORB for
Java.Thanks,Mark--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com,
"Bjorn Schultheiss"bjorn.schultheiss@... wrote
BruijnSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 3:38 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hi
Ted,
At the risk of
offending you ... the more people shout, the less I listen to
them.
I totally agree with
you (again
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Franck de
BruijnSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 4:48 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hi
Bjorn,
Could you provide me
some insight in how large your objects are and how complex
A webservice commonly does this:
* authentication (optional)
* a service/method is invoked with an optional set of arguments
* the service returns a result
Why not abstract your service system to allow SOAP + REST + XML-RPC +
JSON + AMF ?
As long as the interface is abstracted, it doesnt
: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carson Hager
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006
12:53 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Simply turing on gzip compression has
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lee
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
7:31 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
One key enterprise objection to using AMF is the
lack of AMF clients
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hi Ted,
We all understand your arguments 1 and 2.
But in the end, and thats already identified in this topic, its the
user experience that counts. If it does not suffer by using web services,
its
Evangelist
Adobe Systems Incorporated
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Franck
de Bruijn
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:33 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice
On a high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower
machine it can take 3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger
the data exchanged, the worse it gets. Not good.
Aren't you exaggerating a bit here? Can you give a real world example of
a SOAP XML that takes 400ms to
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems
- which provides
On a high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower
machine it can take 3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger
the data exchanged, the worse it gets
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
On a high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower
machine it can take 3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger
the data exchanged, the worse
by the installation of FDS (which can be a
daunting task).
-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted
Patrick
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:50 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
shouldn't we qualify some of this with 'depends on what data you are moving'?? I'm finding that using a REST call to return XML can be WAY faster then using RemoteObject for a reporting tool. In this case I could care less about the magically uber kewl mapping of AS -- CFC/POJOs, eh?
DKOn
I am sure there are many smart people out there who will
get WebServices to work well for them with Flex. It is a
lot of hard work to make this work well and I have only
seen one company do it really well. I do not doubt that
others will make this work reliably but I question its use.
It
I have to agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was considering various means of connecting to my java server during the transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services.
Figuring out how to
No I am not exaggerating.
Run a Web Services call on my mothers old Dell and you can count the
seconds. When AMF was first added to Flash Player 6, the primary reason
was performance on slow machines. AMF was much faster then and it
remains the case. XML parsing performance decays
: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
No I am not exaggerating.
Run a Web Services call on my mothers old Dell and you can count the
seconds. When AMF was first added to Flash Player 6, the primary reason
was performance on slow
Incorporated
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank williams
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
11:19 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
I have
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted
PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of hank williams
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
11:19 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
I have to agree with Ted regarding
:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU
Something I have done in
the past is to create a hybrid solution. One of the biggest advantages of
Web Services is of course its ability to be consumed by just about everything.
That being said, Java can consume web services! I have found creating Web
Service Facades that FDS connects
You are forgetting that if a request takes half the time to complete, it
needs less cpu time and you can double the concurrent requests per server.
Evert
Dave Wolf wrote:
I simply have to disagree here. We can demonstrate several in
production applications which we have developed using SOAP
I am not clear how what you are talking about relates to the problems
that ted described.
Regards
Hank
On 8/24/06, ryanm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sure there are many smart people out there who will
get WebServices to work well for them with Flex. It is a
lot of hard work to make this
: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ryanm
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:05 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems
- which provides
I am sure there are many smart people out there who will
get
FDS Express - FREE
- unlimited users with no clustering
- 1 CPU ( multi-core supported )
The number of users on FDS Express is tied to the scalability of the
server. Most machines fail in supporting a high number of concurrent
users at the host operating system. Some OS's are more scalable than
Ted:
Thanks,
Jack
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of adobetedSent:
Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:26 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
FDS Express - FREE
: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted
] On Behalf Of adobetedSent:
Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:26 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
FDS Express - FREE- unlimited users with no clustering- 1 CPU (
multi-core supported )The number of users on FDS
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have
to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can support but how
many users your entire application can
Of hank
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have
to say one thing. The issue isnt how
, 2006 2:31 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have
to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can support but how
: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Hey Michael,Actually, I think (though I am not sure about this) that
it is no different from deploying any other J2EE application. I dont think you
need root access. I know my main account doesnt have root access
On 8/24/06, Bjorn Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not Neccesarily.
When you start talking dedicated server prices can get
quite high.
Chassis, Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going
up.Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is really a
:05 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk
E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which
provides
On 8/24/06, Bjorn
Schultheiss bjorn.schultheiss@qdc.net.au
wrote:
Not
Neccesarily.
When you
start talking dedicated server
@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
On 8/24/06, Bjorn
Schultheiss bjorn.schultheiss@qdc.net.au
wrote:
Not
Neccesarily.
When you
start talking dedicated server prices can get quite high.
Chassis,
Power
I am not clear how what you are talking about relates to the problems
that ted described.
The parsing speed of the transport layer need not be relevant to the
snappiness and responsiveness of your application if you plan
appropriately.
ryanm
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ:
In my case, every modification to the web services must be done with
extreme
care, as we have partners who also consume those services. It doesn't
make
sense to optimize the services just for Flex, as it is only a small part
of
our total picture.
If you have no control over the
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 11:05 AMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
On 8/24/06, Bjorn
Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not
Neccesarily.
When you
start talking dedicated
-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk
E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which
provides
On 8/24/06, Bjorn
Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not
Neccesarily.
When you
start talking dedicated server prices can get quite high.
Chassis,
Power Supplies, Bandwidth
Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is
really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard*
to
spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte
raid thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course
On a departmental version, if I have 2 single CPU servers(clustered) I
would
need 2 licenses at $6K per CPU.
Does that get me 200 concurrent users?
Nope...
FDS Departmental - $6K per CPU
- 100 concurrent users across cluster
- multiple CPU support
- clustering support
That's what
Check out WebORB: $700 per license, no concurrent user limit. ;-)
Hey, do they do Java remoting with AMF3? I know they do it with .NET
and Now ROR, but I would be really interested in a Java product if
they have it.
Hank
--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ:
24, 2006 11:19 AM
*To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
* Subject:* Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of
backend
systems - which provides
I have to agree with Ted regarding productivity.
Of course I may just be revealing that I am not as smart as the rest
of you
: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk
E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which
provides
On 8/24/06, Shannon
Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]com
wrote:
$20,000
for remoting and not other FDS features?
Last I
checked, ColdFusion server was around $1300/server
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
On a departmental version, if I have 2 single CPU servers(clustered) I
would need 2 licenses at $6K per CPU. Does that
get me 200 concurrent users?Nope...FDS Departmental - $6K
per CPU- 100
Senior Flash Developer
QDC Technologies
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 12:20 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
On 8/24
8:05
PMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk
E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems - which provides
On 8/24/06, Bjorn
Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not
Neccesarily.
When
you start talking
.
Jack
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ryanmSent:
Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:27 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
On a departmental version, if I have 2
:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
not listening? Flex 1.5 had like none of the price options Flex 2.0 has
and no fancy IDE worth salt! DK
On 8/24/06, Jack
Caldwell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]com wrote:
Ryanm
I am sorry to make this 'Guinness-World-Records-candidate' thread even
longer, but I thought I'd clarify..
WebORB and the AMF3 implementation we offer is available for .NET,
Ruby and soon-to-be-released PHP, but not Java. Btw, the WebORB for
PHP release should be available next week and it will
@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
I am sorry to make this 'Guinness-World-Records-candidate' thread
evenlonger, but I thought I'd clarify..WebORB and the AMF3
implementation we offer is available for .NET,Ruby and soon-to-be-released
Developer
QDC Technologies
_
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Piller
Sent: Friday, 25 August 2006 2:30 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems -
which provides
I am
)?
Cheers,
Franck
From:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Patrick
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
6:50 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Frank,
RPC
production
application in terms of
total users and average simultaneous
users?
Thanks,
Jack
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave
WolfSent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:20 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:20 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems -
which provides
I simply have to disagree here. We can demonstrate several in
production applications which we have developed using SOAP XML
WebServices
Jack Caldwell wrote:
Dave:
I agree that a 1/3 of a second is not going to be noticed by the end-user.
However, when you add 100s or 1,000s of users . . . . does that make a
difference?
I don't know . . . . that's why I am asking. You guys have the experience.
It doesn't make any
@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
WoodSent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:13 AMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Jack Caldwell wrote: Dave: I agree that a
1/3 of a second is not going
,
Jack
_
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Martin Wood
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:13 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems
- which provides
Jack
, August 22, 2006 4:20 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems -
which provides
I simply have to disagree here. We can demonstrate several in
production applications which we have developed using SOAP XML
WebServices
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Caldwell
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006
10:40 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
Martin:
OK
Jack Caldwell wrote:
Martin:
OK . . . . so the lag time is when the data gets back to the end-user?
exactly, its the time it takes for the flash player or actionscript code to
convert the incoming data into a format usable by the application.
Before in the flash world that was a big deal
which can help.
-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Martin Wood
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:27 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems
- which provides
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems - which provides
Martin:
OK . . . . so the lag time is when the data gets back to the end-user?
Bottom line . . . . with all things being equal . . . .
Does a web service
the thread any further. ;)
-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:34 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems -
which provides
AMF is faster in 3 fundamental ways:
Bandwidth Size
Smaller, lighter, faster!!!
Parsing Speed Less work
on both client and server!!!
Developer Productivity
Less work for developers!!!
Web Services are dependent on XML Parsing on both the
client
-CYNERGYMobile: 1.703.489.6466
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom LeeSent:
Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:22 AMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
I'm sure someone already
which can help.
-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Martin Wood
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:27 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems
- which provides
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006
8:25 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
One quite important thing to keep in mind is that in
many
app.
Hope this points you in the right direction.
Shan
_
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of rhlarochelle
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:27 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A few things...
First I am working on a demo that will show the performance and
bandwidth differences between the various ways of exchanging data
between Flex apps and the backend. I'll let everyone know when it's
ready... Hopefully next week.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for the double post. Forgot to mention one thing...
The benefits are also seen with DataService, and ever more so when you
use lazyLoading and paging.
- -James
James Ward wrote:
A few things...
First I am working on a demo that will
Piller
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006
6:36 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
In the cases where you cannot use remote
objects, web services still
work great
Andrew, do you have any examples when
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides
AMF is
faster in 3 fundamental ways:
Bandwidth Size Smaller, lighter,
faster!!!
Parsing Speed Less work on both client
and server!!!
Developer Productivity Less
.
_
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Piller
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:36 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems -
which provides
In the cases where you cannot use
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
rhlarochelleSent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:27 AMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides best
functionality
Franck,I appreciate your respons. When you say Remote Objects/Flex
DataServices provid
.
Hope this points you in the right
direction.
Shan
From:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
rhlarochelleSent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:27 AMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re: Choice of backend systems
it to your app.
Hope this points you in the right
direction.
Shan
From:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
rhlarochelleSent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:27 AMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders]
Re: Choice of backend
you in the right direction.
Shan
_
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of rhlarochelle
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:27 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems -
which
22, 2006 3:20 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [Junk E-Mail -
LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which
provides
I simply have to disagree here. We can demonstrate several inproduction
applications which we have developed using SOAP XMLW
On 8/22/06, Dave Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Worring about 300 milliseconds is like trying to debate the number of angels
that could
dance on the end of a pin. If the user can't see them, it doesn't matter how
many there
are.
Nice metaphor, I like that :)
Cheers,
Ralf.
--
Flexcoders
direction.
Shan_ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of rhlarochelle Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:27 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
systems - which provides best functionality Franck, I
There are many other very smart things you can do like extending
existing controls to do streaming rendering of data to provide the
perception of speed, server side paging, caching, etc.
I fully agree with Dave. In the Flash world, XML has always been
ill-reputed as being 'bloated' and
87 matches
Mail list logo
