Hey Geoff, thanks for the response. I have a question though, and it's not me being a smart-ass or anything -honestly!
Ok, open IE6, load a flash site with version 6 of the flash player. Open another instance of IE6, load a different site and do the upgrade to flash 8 (without closing the other browser). After its all said and done, the upgrade never completed and now IE can't create an instance of the FLash object to do version detection OR show the site. The only way to show it, is to hardcode the object tag in an html page - then IE will display the content. Mind you, it doesn't have to be another instance of IE open, it can be anything using the FlashOCX. So, I guess what I'm missing here is the part where JS can't make an object and FlashObject works anyway. Huh? I mean, give me the technical reason *why* I should just use FlashObject anyway, despite the fact that it failed during the Hilton journey's site. There's a fortune 500 company, and it no worky. Now, for the vast majority of users, there probably wasn't a problem, but with the 5 executives who went home to show off their new site to the family, it happened to 100% of them. So, there's no trying to talk them out of what they experienced. In their eyes, 100% failure rate amongst themselves means big problems elsewhere etc. I feel like either I'm missing something fundamental here, or I haven't articulated the problem well enough. Thanks Geoff John On 4/17/06, Geoff Stearns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since nobody really answered this, here you go: > > Neither one is really 'better' - they both do pretty much exactly the > same thing. Some people like the syntax used in FlashObject, some > people like the way UFO works instead. Check them both out and pick > the one you like better. > > I'd also like to address some of the concerns about FlashObject: > > 1) Jim said "My only reservation with FlashObject is that it's > written in a style that makes it pretty un maintainable." > > First, I guess I'm not sure why you would need to 'maintain' it. The > script is basically just an API for writing the HTML to embed a swf > file into an html document. This probably won't change significantly > any time soon, so the need to 'maintain' a script like this is non- > existent. Second, maybe you were looking at the compressed version? I > include a version of the 'source' code that is much easier to read if > you are into that. > > As far as the misc. accusations about FlashObject not being Object > Oriented, (Jim said: "IMHO, the code is very procedural, not object > oriented. The cues for this are the endless conditional > statements. A good, encapsulated architecture can greatly minimize > these...") > > I say this: WTF? FlashObject is about os OOP as you can get with > Javascript. (and where are the 'endless conditional statements' you > speak of?) It's not some compiled language that gets compressed and > translated into machine language. FlashObject is also meant to be a > *very* small file with one specific task. Comparing it to dojo or > other js libraries makes absolutely no sense to me at all. That said, > it's very easy to add more functionality to FlashObject because it > *is* in fact written in an object oriented fashion (in the style of > ECMA script, using prototype). I've written an extension for it for > Flash/JS communication and it works great - I haven't officially > released it yet, but if anyone is interested in seeing how to do > this, you are welcome to grab the source code here: example page: > http://blog.deconcept.com/code/intkit/fo_integrationkit.html > source: http://blog.deconcept.com/code/intkit/fo_integrationkit.zip > > 2) elibol and I have discussed the ExpressInstall functionality in > FlashObject very thoroughly, and he has a lot of very good points and > had a couple of requests to make using ExpressInstall a bit easier, > but I decided to not change how it works because I like giving people > the choice of custom upgrade messages. During the exchange with him, > I did realize that forcing people to use AS2 for something like that > was a bad idea and have since changed it to a simple AS include file > instead of an AS2 class. > > As for the need to couple your Flash content with FlashObject if you > use ExpressInstall - this is just wrong - All of the scripts I've > seen that use ExpressInstall pass in the same 3 variables (and they > have to) - take any Flash movie that is set up to support > ExpressInstall and it will work with any of the other javascript > embed solutions that also support ExpressInstall. > > 3) Kevin suggested using his Player.js script - while his other stuff > is really awesome (HistoryKeeper, dang) the Player.js code doesn't > support all the stuff that FlashObject or UFO provide. So really I > think that Kevin should just use FlashObject ;) > > 4) John Grden says: > "ummm, that's the problem - no JavaScript worky - no write out object > at all = screwed. He's got a great point that we've been dealing > with as well. We are using the FlashObject code, but if a user has > JavaScript disabled, there ain't no party. So, flash dectection is a > bit more than just FlashObject." > > and > > "You don't just go and tell a fortune 500 company "um, sorry that it > failed on your lame computer at home." > > To this I say: Dang, man. I work with those same fortune 500 > companies (I work at Schematic - we use FlashObject in all of our > Flash sites) and we never have issues with it. Assuming you create > your pages to degrade gracefully (which FlashObject encourages), your > users will be just fine if they don't have Flash or JS installed. I > personally don't feel that embedding Flash *without* JS an option > anymore. With all the different vesions of the Flash player out > there, and all the benefits you get from using Javascript in search > engines, it seems like a no brainer to use Javascript. > > If you have doubts about using FlashObject on a 'big' site, then you > can rest assured that it's already being used an many many huge > websites. > > Like what? oh how about: windows.com, youtube.com, and the library of > congress: http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/ (and thousands more) > > -- > > Ok, I think I've covered most of the issues - if anyone wants to > discuss this further, or has suggestions on how to make FlashObject > better (or just feature requests), you are welcome to join the > mailing list I have set up, which is here: > > http://lists.deconcept.com/listinfo.cgi/flashobject-deconcept.com > > (or of course reply to this thread, whatevs) > > Sorry for the delayed response on this one - as Jim said, it was > awesome in NYC this weekend, and I was lounging in the sun in Central > Park :) > > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com > -- John Grden - Blitz _______________________________________________ [email protected] To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
