Hi, don't understand me wrong. Network implementations should be something to continue evolving over time to get something more "royale" than flex implementation (bead implementation, less weight,...). But right now RPC is the part of MXRoyale that you still require to use AMF in the right way.
El lun., 6 jul. 2020 a las 17:47, Hugo Ferreira (<[email protected]>) escribió: > Hi Carlos, > > Ho, I thought that SimpleRemoteObject was ready for production and it's > missing a few properties (compared with mx:RemoteObject) just because as > you said, it's a new start. > > Thank you. > > > Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> escreveu no dia segunda, 6/07/2020 > à(s) 15:59: > > > Hi Hugo, > > > > I don't remember about the codes, but I I found lots of problems. I > > remember I need to change to mx:RemoteObject to get it working in our > first > > migration. > > I think SimpleRemoteObject is a good start, but needs more work to be a > > valid replacement. If you want to contribute to it, that's very good. > > Thanks > > > > El lun., 6 jul. 2020 a las 10:38, Hugo Ferreira (<[email protected] > >) > > escribió: > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > But do you know if the ping contant 13 it's the normal way of > > > SimpleRemoting or it's a bug that can change in a near future ? > > > > > > Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> escreveu no dia segunda, > > 6/07/2020 > > > à(s) 08:37: > > > > > > > Hi Hugo, > > > > > > > > as I just responded in other email, please don't use Network AMF > > > > implementations, you must use MXRoyale implementations since you're > > > > migrating > > > > from an existing AMF backend. We have clients using .NET and AMF and > > all > > > is > > > > working fine. So you'll get the same as you have now in Flex. > > > > If you find some bug please create an issue, but implementation seems > > all > > > > ok. > > > > > > > > Remember to add: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -compiler.exclude-defaults-css-files=MXRoyale-${royale.framework.version}-js.swc:defaults.css; > > > > to avoid CSS issues. We still need to separate RPC code from MXRoyale > > > some > > > > day to a MXRPC lib to avoid this problem. > > > > Any help on this is appreciated. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > El dom., 5 jul. 2020 a las 15:29, Hugo Ferreira (< > > [email protected] > > > >) > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I have my own .NET AMF Library implementation, compatible with both > > > .NET, > > > > > Mono, Xamarin and .NET Core thru .NET Standard. > > > > > > > > > > Testing SimpleRemoteObject (after solving the CORS issue on debug > > > mode), > > > > I > > > > > faced an issue and I just fixed it and put my .NET AMF library > > > compatible > > > > > with both Royale SimpleRemoteObject and Flex RemoteObject and it's > > > > working > > > > > thine (for the first Hello World test)! > > > > > > > > > > The point is, with Flex RemoteObject, the ping operation uses the > > > > constant > > > > > 5 (client ping operation) but with Royale SimpleRemoteObject this > > > > constant > > > > > changed to 13. > > > > > Any particular reason for this? > > > > > Is it to identify the backend that the caller is Royale instead of > > > Flex? > > > > > Can I confident add this value 13 to my enumeration and commit my > > > library > > > > > that will not change in the near future (now compatible with > Royale)? > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Hugo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
