That may be so, but it doesn't mean there can't be some unintended uses for the technology.
Sure, and I could spend $100k on some WebSphere integration technology and use it for all sorts of things outside its target market... :)
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).
The Flex server includes specific server-side functionality which is used by the generated SWFs - they are not standalone SWFs like those generated by the Flash IDE. Part of the expressive power of MXML relies on the increased server-side power of Flex.
1. The language format for Flex is straight XML text (.mxml) and the language format for Flash IDE is a propriety binary file (.fla).
And ActionScript in both cases.
2. Flex compiles the .swf file on the server, Flash IDE compiles the .swf on the client.
Flex also provides Flash Player version detection.
3. Flex as a better set of components than Flash, but they are an improved version of the components that ship with Flash IDE.
Yes.
4. Flex is easier and more productive that Flash IDE.
That depends on whether you are more comfortable with timelines and visual programming or with pure text programming and a simple text editor...
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.
Yes, you can dynamically generate MXML from CFML and JSP but don't forget that it only contributes to the *initial* MXML that is used to generate the SWF. Most of the dynamic behavior in an RIA comes from interaction with the server. It just happens to be a lot easier to manage that dynamic behavior in Flex than in raw ActionScript.
6. Flex automatically generates and deploys .swf files, Flash IDE requires manual generation and deployment.
Yes.
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.
Yes, if you are a text-based programmer then Flex is certainly more intuitive than the visual IDE of Flash, IMO.
I see it beneficial (for me at least) to replace the Flash IDE with an editor (Brady?) and a compiler.
Well, that's a somewhat short-sighted view, IMO, since Flex is so much more than a compiler.
Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Information Technology -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 832-5258 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog
Macromedia Flex - The presentation-tier solution for delivering
enterprise Rich Internet Applications - http://www.macromedia.com/go/flex
--- 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
