far as the memory leak goes I can't provide any real information on
that front only to say that it either has already been addressed by
Macromedia or will be in the future. Remember, the FlashORB product is
based on Flash Remoting, so they very much are biased in that
direction.
-Matt
On Jan 13, 2004, at 10:22 AM, Burns, John wrote:
> I haven't gotten into this a lot, but is the HTTP compression of soap
> an
> option in Flash?��Their argument with the memory leak information
> seemed
> like it was pretty solidly based.��I'm assuming that's just a Flash
> player issue?��Any explanation or further education would be greatly
> appreciated as I'm looking into these options now.
>
> John Burns
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 5:16 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Flash Remoting with Blue Dragon
>
> >http://www.flashorb.com/articles/soap_vs_flash_remoting_benchmark.shtm
> > l
> >
> > Unfortunately, it seems like they forgot to consider HTTP compression
> >
> They didn't forget... the purposely excluded it. Otherwise their
> argument would fall on its face.
>
> -Matt
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
