I'm personally having trouble understanding what you want FLEX to do? FLEX is just another means to create FLASH (ie just like CFMX is another means to generate HTML) the end result is the same but the process is different.
In Flash IDE you are emmersed in Timelines/MovieClip mentality, in FLEX you aren't. Even though at the end of the day it kind of is, its still a lot easier to turn out a FLEX based RIA then it is a Flash RIA (keeping in mind, the RIA is based on FORM driven principals).
Putting together all the pieces to make a HTML style form in FLASH is quite time consuming and at times can be painful (preloaders, init screens etc). In FLEX, they short cut a lot of excess un-needed development time to allow you to focus on the business instead of the technology.
As for comparing FLASH to FLEX, although they have similiar ingredients, they are very different in a lot of ways (especially in development). FLEX is not only a compiler but a pre-fabricated framework (whether you want to use it or not, the core object loads most of the framework components anyway - see <mx:Application/> tags decompiled results). The seperation of FLEX the compiler from the pre-made framework, to my understanding is a pointless request, simply put you will have to make your own <mx:Application/> tag to get started anyway.
More importantly creation of a framework as opposed to the one existing (despite my pet hates about v2 framework, it is solid) is a big time waste / money burner for a FLEX client. The purpose of FLEX is to allow RAPID development of FLASH based applications with minimal effort. That is a big request for FLEX and it does perform to the task quite well.
You can mix in some JSP stuff but for CFMX mix-ins, i'm yet to see that example (except Blackstone which is a different concept altogether).
As for the differences between FLASH & FLEX, the process is my best answer. FLASH is painful, its a bottleneck of development time/costs and relies to heavily on single individuals. FLEX allows for mutliple developers aswell as the ability to use 3rd party development tools like CVS much more effeciently then in FLASH.
FLASH requires you to build it all from the ground up to even get started on a form or a screen, FLEX simply allows you to focus on the business logic and further expand into the UI shell (ie how you want the forms displayed etc).
Its so much easier to talk to Remote Objects (CFMX/SOAP etc) through Flex then it is through flash. Try building a grid system that talks to a server-side language through FLASH then do the same concept through FLEX, you will see a huge difference in time (not only turn around but development time itself).
Now, FLASH IDE itself has its own set of powers, mainly in the Multimedia arena (movies, animations, games etc) as despite how cool FLEX is to use via XML approach, it relies on PRE-MADE components. You still need FLASH IDE to create the components and at times do rather complex AS2.0 code.
So Yeah, tonnes of reasons why FLEX is different to FLASH, and why the two while use the same technology are different products.
--
Regards, Scott Barnes - http://www.mossyblog.com http://www.bestrates.com.au
Chris Velevitch wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2004 15:53:11 -0700, Sean A Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 3, 2004, at 6:37 PM, Chris Velevitch wrote:
That's a fine strategy for developing business in a new market. But the problem is, Macromedia has reinvented Flash, basically making more attractive for existing developers who currently use Macromedia tools.
Flex is primarily aimed at a new market rather than existing Macromedia developers - J2EE and .NET application developers are not, currently, Macromedia developers in the sense you mean (if I understand you correctly).
That may be so, but it doesn't mean there can't be some unintended uses for the technology.
But I need to statically generate swf files and MXML makes that whole process easier.
MXML relies on server-side machinery provided by the Flex system - it's far more than a compiler. The notion of releasing a "standalone MXML compiler" doesn't really make sense when you understand what MXML provides (the data modeling, the remote service binding etc - that all depends on server-side machinery).
You haven't really shown how Flex plus a server differs from Flash IDE plus a server. Both Flex and Flash IDE generates .swf files. These .swf files run on the same Flash Player. The Flash Player can connect to remote services (web services, Flash Remoting, etc). That is they both rely on some "server-side machinery" (ie Flash Remoting, Web services etc).
Prior to the release of Flex, using the Flash IDE you are abe to create .swf files that connect to remote services. The Flash IDE has components to allow you to create a .swf file to connect to web services. In order to connect to remote services, you have to have a data model in the Flash IDE. I see no real differences from the perspective of application development.
As I see it, the basic difference between Flex and Flash IDE are:-
1. The language format for Flex is straight XML text (.mxml) and the language format for Flash IDE is a propriety binary file (.fla).
2. Flex compiles the .swf file on the server, Flash IDE compiles the .swf on the client.
3. Flex as a better set of components than Flash, but they are an improved version of the components that ship with Flash IDE. (If you have Flex, you'll notice there is a flexforflash directory which contains all the Flex components for use with Flash IDE)
4. Flex is easier and more productive that Flash IDE.
5. I haven't tried this, but I suspect Flex allows you mix MXML tags with CFML, JSP, etc tags thereby making the input dynamic to the .swf generator whereas, Flash IDE relies on static input.
6. Flex automatically generates and deploys .swf files, Flash IDE requires manual generation and deployment.
I think the really big deal about Flex is the language format. I new to developing Flash-based UI's and I find it slow going using the existing Flash IDE. I've done a couple of Flex tutorials, and seems quicker. Others have also commented that Flex is quicker to develop applications.
I see it beneficial (for me at least) to replace the Flash IDE with an editor (Brady?) and a compiler.
Chris
--- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
