I'm not concerned about download size of AMF code unless support for lesser-used classes are significant.
OK, so I think I have that. XML is very PAYG. It only works for writing if you use XML already elsewhere in your project (if you did not do that, then you could never write an XML instance in any case!). And it throws errors if XML is needed for reading, but not included in your project. In time I can review the code and see if I can consolidate/optimize parts of it as well. I'm not sure I understand why XML and Dictionary (or AMF equivalents) can't be implemented as IExternalizable, but I haven't dug deep enough to know. I can understand why you thought about this approach, but I don't think it is viable. I have been digging kinda deep in this for a while now. That doesn't mean I have not thought of all angles, but I can say that I have spent a bit of time thinking about it. If you want to discuss it more, feel free to open a thread about that and we can both dig deeper. On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 11:29 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > Royale has a JSONReviver that is a first cut at generating ValueObjects > from JSON. > > What we don't know is what the relative performance/bandwidth trade-offs > are on AMF vs JSON. However, it really shouldn't matter. Royale can offer > both. I'm just wanting the implementation of AMF support in XML to be > PAYG. I'm not concerned about download size of AMF code unless support for > lesser-used classes are significant. > > I'm not sure I understand why XML and Dictionary (or AMF equivalents) > can't be implemented as IExternalizable, but I haven't dug deep enough to > know. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 3/7/19, 2:21 PM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sure Carlos, that's just my view. > There are definitely more approaches to 'typing' json than there used > to be > (I did not use protobuffer yet but it seems interesting). I think the > case > for AMF becomes stronger for 'new' projects if there is an easy way to > move > to other things without major changes. > But for the record I do like amf :) > > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 10:17 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > Hi Greg > > > > El jue., 7 mar. 2019 a las 20:41, Greg Dove (<[email protected]>) > > escribió: > > > > > > > > I think AMF in general should be considered legacy support. I > would be > > > surprised, for example, if lots of people start using AMF remoting > in new > > > projects simply because Royale supports it in javascript. I > suspect they > > > are more likely to use json or protobuf etc for newer projects. > > > > > > > > don't want to "un-focus" the thread, but I continue thinking that > AMF is > > far better for structured programing. > > JSON still lacks typing, and that seems to me a big problem. > > Maybe speed, nowadays could be almost the same (although I think > when I > > search about this topic few months ago that AMF still was more > performant) > > So, if people uses Royale, and AMF is working great as we have > now...don't > > see a reason to not go with AMF as a first option. > > > > Just my 2! ;) > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C354e11257b4d4f0a0f4808d6a34b3fae%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636875940924004950&sdata=Sx1Ky8BKMOesHO9t5apR6iXm21XoRQFHTQSCUqOPt9k%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
