more robust than MM's flash remoting for java.
clint
Matt Liotta wrote:
> Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything like an open source
> implementation of AMF, which is what I assumed I would find given the
> domain name. What am I supposed to find there?
>
> -Matt
>
> On Jan 13, 2004, at 5:40 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote:
>
> > Give openamf.org a go. Solves all these issues you mention.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: January 13, 2004 10:56 AM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Re: Flash Remoting with Blue Dragon
> >
> > > Depends on how you look at "portable". At the end of the day a Flash
> > > app
> > > can only access a server resource if it resides on the same server as
> > > the published SWF file or if crossdomain.xml allows it. If you have
> > > access to the server it really only makes sense to take advantage of
> > > the
> > > Remoting performance boost. Remember Remoting works with SOAP but the
> > > deserialization occurs on the server not the client so the issue of
> > > SOAP
> > > vs Remoting really isn't there.
> > >
> > It might make sense to use Flash Remoting, but you have to remember
> > that Flash Remoting is a product that costs money, so even if you have
> > access to the server, you will still need a license to Flash Remoting
> > before you can use it. On the other hand, there are plenty of server
> > products that have built-in support for SOAP meaning that adding Flash
> > Remoting to the mix will actually cost more.
> >
> > > 3. I have found Flash Remoting and AMF to be more robust than the web
> > > service implementations I have used. I have forced myself to use web
> > > services in newer projects rather than Flash Remoting just to get the
> > > experience, and I have found bugs in both the Flash implementation
> > and
> > > in Apache Axis which caused a lot of frustration and would have been
> > > avoided if I had used Flash Remoting. So far, I have not run into
> > any
> > > significant bugs with Flash Remoting that I can recall.
> > >
> > > Very true.
> > >
> > Maybe true for some, but there are plenty of Flash Remoting issues that
> > still haven't been addressed. For example, you still can't consume
> > services from Java classes and CFCs in the same context as both rely on
> > different gateways that are not compatible. Further, there is serious
> > marshaling challenges for Java-based services that Flash Remoting
> > consumes not the least of which is corrupted objects.
> >
> > -Matt
> > _____
> >
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
