doesn't have accessability concerns. I don't know of any blind
programmers, do you calvin? :P This whole css thing is really taken
stupidly out of proportion. Just because you don't use tables doesn't
mean the company doesn't deliver a good product for something completely
unrelated to html markup.
Remoting is binary / web services are verbose xml therefore remoting
*is* faster-- http compression or not. Benchmark or not. Its simple
common sense. Although if you take the time to read the tests and if you
can understand the code, I'm assuming you cannot, then you would also
understand it is a fair test. The fact that they have a business case
for the benchmark means nothing. They wouldn't publish if it wheren't in
their favor afterall. Just as Sun hasn't published any j2ee/.net
benchmarks for a very long time. Besides all of this http compression is
a web server concern not applicable to a benchmark of the remoting
technology itself.
As I said before: flash remoting is a serverside technology capably of
consuming webserivces and communicating to the client via a binary
format whereas the new actionscript webservices api uses clientside xml
deserialization process. It *is* slower no matter what.
>From my experience the performance difference is really only noticable
when dealing with datasets-- or as it's known in cf land "querys".
-----Original Message-----
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: January 31, 2004 4:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Web Services vs. Remoting - Performance Tests?
For me they lost credibility when I viewed the source and saw tables for
all layout... :P
It is an interesting read though. Hasn't MM always stated that FR was a
better performer?
Calvin
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Liotta
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Web Services vs. Remoting - Performance Tests?
That is not an independent benchmark and even if it was it doesn't
take
into account HTTP compression. Remember, FlashOrb is a product that
relies on Flash Remoting, so there is some bias there.
-Matt
On Jan 30, 2004, at 2:42 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote:
> Here's an independant benchmark:
>
http://www.flashorb.com/articles/soap_vs_flash_remoting_benchmark.shtml
>
>
> But more importantly, all the flash remoting servers can invoke
methods
> on webserices and return the results to the flash client in a binary
> format. This seems to be forgotton by most for some reason. The only
> difference, the webservice is being deserialized on the server
instead
> of the client. This is a good thing. MM is pushing clientside
> webservice
> deserialization for those who do not have access to their server. At
> least, thats the only reason I can see why you'd use it. Of course,
if
> you don't have access to the server publishing the webservice I
doubt
> you can change the crossdomain.xml and if you can't change that then
> you
> can't consume any remote service from flash. The moral of the
story?
> Native client web services api looks good on the box and ppl buy
into
> it.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: January 30, 2004 7:05 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Web Services vs. Remoting - Performance Tests?
>
> My tests have shown that Flash Remoting is significantly faster for
> large amounts of data, but only when HTTP compression is not used
with
> SOAP. I believe that SOAP plug HTTP compression strikes the right
> balance of standards and performance.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Jan 30, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Burns, John wrote:
>
> > Has anyone seen real, objective performance tests done on web
> services
> > and flash remoting that compare the speed differences and would
help
> me
> > make a choice on whether it's just as easy to use web services in
> Flash
> > as opposed to remoting? I know that technically remoting is
faster,
> > but
> > I'm curious by how much. Any info would be great. Thanks!
> >
> >
> > John Burns
> >
> _____
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
