inconsistencies. PIA's do seem to be a decent option nowadays given the
cross browser libraries available. The main draw for flex and such
seems to be the write once run anywhere aspect which typically hasn't
been a strong point of DHTML.
--
Marlon Moyer, Sr. Internet Developer
American Contractors Insurance Group
phone: 972.687.9445
fax: 972.687.0607
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.acig.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Luce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:14 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: RIA options, Flex Flash and others.
>
> Wow, you're right. That Flex Code Explorer is horrible. It even kinda
> "shudders" when it's expanding and collapsing. And the app takes
around
> a minute to load.
>
> Why is any of this better than a DHMTL tree with nice little images?
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:34 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RIA options, Flex Flash and others.
>
>
> There have been several threads lately, about RIAs and PIAs --
> discussing Flex, Flash, XUL, Neuromancer (_javascript_ Remoting),
desktop
> applications and XUL.
>
> I for one was/am critical of the Flash RIA as not being good enough --
> resulting in a heavy or sticky feel to the UI.
>
> I realize the advantages of Flash, especially its consistency and
> ubiquity -- I only wish it were more usable and more programmable.
> Flex (at some cost) appears to address the programmability issue.
> Also, there are hints that the next CFMX will include some Flash
> programming capabilities.
>
> That's all well and good, if Flash can deliver acceptable performance
> -- if it can't then I will look elsewhere for RIA solutions.
>
> I like MACR, Their products are good to excellent, their people are
> great -- I have had no negative experiences with either.
>
> That said, Flash still disappoints me -- I would like to see it
> succeed. I would like to be able to use it.
>
> But there is something very wrong.
>
> Several days ago I mentioned that the Flex code explorer contained one
> of the slowest menu trees I'd ever seen.
>
> This is one of the apps that MACR uses to showcase the FlexFlash RIA.
>
> It just isn't fast enough to be usable, especially when you consider
> the amount of client resources it consumes to attain poor UI
> performance. My particular criticism is with the expanding and
> collapsing of the folders -- where only client-side RIA processing is
> performed,
>
> Two days ago I learned about XUL.
>
> XUL looks like a possible RIA solution & that too, has been discussed
> in other threads.
>
> To prove to myself that the Flash Tree example was, indeed a poor
> performer, I decided to write a comparable tree menu in XUL. All I
> really did was create (part of) the tree. Selecting an
> item/document/leaf node doesn't do anything. I nested the folders 3
> levels deep and duplicated the "Component Library" outer node enough
> times to get a tree larger than the code explorer. This is enough to
> compare expand/collapse with the Flash tree.
>
> Here it is. You need a current Mozilla or FireFox browser tto
render
> XUL.
>
> http://67.124.145.42/XUL/XULSampleTreeMenu.xul
>
> Put this up, side-by-side with the Flex Code Explorer at:
>
>
http://macromedia.com/software/flex/?promoid=home_prod_flex_111703#
>
> Expand enough folders on each to get the window scrolling. Then
> expand/collapse the top node.
>
> Why is Flash so slow?
>
> Thoughts!
>
> Dick
>
> P.S. Display source and you will see the entire XUL program.
>
> P.P.S. The XUL page may be slow to download -- The site is on my
> development machine which is quite busy -- JRUN/CFMX/MySQL,
> VirtualPC/WIN XP, 2 streamers, lots of browser windows & a few desktop
> apps
>
>
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
