1) Goto Amazon.com, browse through their system and go through the
purchase process. Each time measure the file size of the HTTP document
and any images that are pulled down on the request.
2) Compare that against the flex store example (ok not 100% fair
considering it doesn't do as much as Amazon)
Point being is that after the initial download...all future
communication is via service calls...and with each request (in
comparison to HTTP version) the total bytes used by the flex app are
lower than the overall browser experience.
Cheers!
Stace
_____
From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Flex again!
I've been doing some research into Flex recently and one of the things
that has put me off of it is that it seems to not be a viable option for
non-broadband users. From the swf's in my cache, it seems the smallest
size is 100K and 150K isn't too uncommon for the sample apps on
Macromedia.com. I know that some of my very involved DHTML apps that
use common libraries may be getting close to that size, but at least
with _javascript_, it can be cached. Maybe this is why is seems that
Macromedia is targeting the big enterprise guys instead of the common
developers.
I was thinking that it would be nice if the next version of the flash
player would have the base classes built in, but that would probably
make the player download quite large.
--
Marlon Moyer, Sr. Internet Developer
American Contractors Insurance Group
phone: 972.687.9445
fax: 972.687.0607
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.acig.com
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
