Wow thanks for that information - And Yes, if you are able to explain some things in greater depth, you would be helping me in a HUGE way since I have to make some decisions regarding my "programming future".
Other than Flex 2.0 being more advanced than 1.5, what are the major differences between the 2? Do I still need a JRun Server (or some other type server) setup on one of my machines, in order to compile my Flex Applications? The way it worked before, was that you write out all your .mxml files, and they would compile the first time they are accessed. Thereafter, the only time they would recompile (causing a slight pause on the client side) is when the .mxml file is changed/updated. Is this still the same method being used? I downloaded portions of the 2.0 Beta kit, but I could use some major clarifications regarding what I actually need (as a developer) to write and run Flex Applications. In addition to that, I would love to know what the clients actually USING the Flex Apps would require - regarding servers and additional software that would have to be purchased. With Flex 1.5, I had a LOT of hang-ups regarding pricing structure, etc. especially once it went into production on the client side of things. I still have high hopes with Flex 2.0 - I just hope it all stays reasonable. Thanks again!! Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:23 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Flex Apps versus Flash Projector apps Nope, just confusion on the license terms. Adobe will work with you, but most people couldn't afford Flex 1.5 anyway, so license discussions were pointless. Macromedia Central, for example, accessed SWF's like this and it was perfectly legal. Most Flex developers deploy SWF's to their server, and only use mxmlc for development. Having the Flex server merely reside on the server, and only compile once you deploy is far more efficient from a server point of view since a SWF is just a binary file served to the client. I can shed a lot of light, but "the whole thing" is a large topic. Anything in particular? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:16 PM Subject: RE: [Flashcoders] Flex Apps versus Flash Projector apps Early on though, I thought there some "legalities" surrounding the "pre-compiling" of SWF's via Flex, and then distributing them in their singular state. I thought that Flex had to stay within the entire workflow, including final viewing/use of the application. I guess I need to do some more homework on this topic. I was totally into Flex when it first came out, but I heard there were tons of changes down the road, so I sort of backed off from the whole thing. Could you shed some more light on that whole thing? Thanks for all your help, Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JesterXL Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:05 PM To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] Flex Apps versus Flash Projector apps Nope. http://dev.jessewarden.com/captivate/flexonthedesktop/ The only reason Flex 2 isn't realistic for creating desktop applications currently is: - it's in beta - mProjector, SWFStudio, Zinc, and Screenweaver haven't made a wrapper for Flash Player 8.5 yet Keep in mind, Flex 2 will create Flash Player 8.5 SWF's; you'll have to wait almost another year before Flash 9 is released so you can do so. Granted, an alpha will be out soon, but people generally do not deliver applications to clients using alpha software. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Flashcoders mailing list" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:54 PM Subject: [Flashcoders] Flex Apps versus Flash Projector apps Hey Everybody, Is it safe to say that, because Flex requires a server in the middle (to process the .mxml files), that Flex is simply an unrealistic solution if your end goal is to deliver "portable applications" that can be self contained? In addition to that statement: Is this why Flash (versus Flex) will have a much longer shelf-life now, because Flash combined with Zinc (or some other projector packager) is still the only way to allow users to use your Flash applications in a "standalone manner", without requiring an HTML container? I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Thanks in advance, Mike _______________________________________________ [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 _______________________________________________ [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 _______________________________________________ [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 _______________________________________________ [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 _______________________________________________ [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
