Correction: That doesn't mean I *have* thought ...etc On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:41 PM Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>
