Besides, I'm sure the memory usage chart (useless as it is) won't have web services consuming every byte of memory like it does now once the leak is fixed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darron J. Schall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: Flash Remoting to CF
> While the memory leak is part of the slower performance of SOAP
> vs. Flash-Remoting, it's not the only reason. Did you read the
> last few lines?
>
> "The SOAP approach results in larger payloads and greater CPU
> processing, resulting from the XML Schema validation and XML
> parsing. The Flash Remoting approach benefits from a binary
> representation of request/response as well as the invocation-
> batching feature. For any application that requires moderate to
> high remote invocation volume and/or that involves complex data
> types and large arrays, Flash Remoting is a better fit. "
>
> Because remoting uses AMF (ActionScript Message Format), which is
> a binary protocol, Flash Remoting will always be faster and less
> memory intensive than text-heavy xml data. Memory leak or not.
>
> -d
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: CF-Talk
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Flash Remoting to CF
>
>
> I'm not even sure why they bothered to run this. I'm sure the
> situation will change once the memory leak is fixed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Darron J. Schall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:35 pm
> Subject: Re: Flash Remoting to CF
>
> > The article can be found by clicking around on sys-con's mxdj page
> >
> > magazine:http://www.sys-con.com/mx/
> > article: http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=37919&DE=1#RES
> >
> > I highly suggest getting a print copy - the results are shown
> as
> > charts which don't seem to be viewable in the online version
> of
> > the article.
> >
> > -d
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
