First off I don't understand this line
"I suspect that the app would need to be marked as a
trusted file using Flash Player Settings Manager, otherwise it would
result in Security Sandbox violation."
Secondly you seem to be listing configuration (i.e. work on your side) as
a negative. In my opinion you should only consider your user's point of view
to make the determination.
Your calculations are pretty accurate as to the size differences and you
seem to have a good understanding of the possible scenarios that users will
face when visiting your app. I would say that in this case you should BOTH
look into modularizing your app and implementing the framework RSLs. This
will give users who have the framework a better experience, and by using
modules give all your users a better experience. Setting up the framework
caching is so simple that it seems odd that you would not do it for an
application of this size.
Steve
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:53 PM, tenni5fan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have read previous posts on Flex framework caching, did some
> experiments with different compiler options and searched Google. Many
> posts advocate using the framework cache in general, however what is
> your opinion for this specific case.
> I am working on the app having 1.6Mb in size when compiled with Flex
> framework statically linked. If I use framework RSL, the app size
> goes down to 1.2Mb. The goal I'm trying to achieve is to have the app
> downloaded as fast as possible the first and subsequent times users
> visit the site.
> Originally I thought it would be a good idea to use framework caching
> - the first time users would incur slight penalty 0.1Mb (1.2+0.5 vs
> 1.6) vs subsequent downloads of 1.2Mb. Unless a framework is cached
> already by visiting some other app (I think the percentage of our
> users having the framework already cached by visiting other website is
> very small).
> That penalty of 0.1M does not seem as much, but should result in
> longer than 10% delay because there will 2 separate http requests.
> The bigger concern is that after the first visit our users will
> already have the application cached in the browser cache and will load
> the app from there when they subsequently visit. Of course the cache
> could be cleared, or we can release a newer version, but in majority
> of cases users should be getting the app from the cache. Another
> drawback of using cache is extra deployment configuration (ant build
> scripts and deploying .swf and .swz) and more importantly running the
> app from Flash Player would require different security permissions
> because the app would first download the framework into cache if it's
> not present. I suspect that the app would need to be marked as a
> trusted file using Flash Player Settings Manager, otherwise it would
> result in Security Sandbox violation.
> With all that said, I think in general it is worth caching the
> framework, but in this particular case I see more disadvantages than
> advantages. Maybe in a year or so when enough people get the
> framework cached on the FP cache, it'll be worth it, but for now I
> don't see worth doing it because my goal is to minimize the download
> time of the app the first time a user visits our website and caching
> actually makes it longer. So I'll be turning my attention to modules.
> What is your opinion for this case?
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
> Flexcoders Mailing List
> FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
> Alternative FAQ location:
> https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847
> Search Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
> Links
>
>
>
>
