Yes, that is correct. You are tied to the bits you built against. New versions do not supercede as it could result in various errors or visual differences
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fotis Chatzinikos Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big... Ok, just to make it 100% clear if 3.2 is cached and mine is 3.0 you say that 3.0 will be downloaded even 3.2 is there? On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Crossdomain RSLs are per public release. There is a separate RSL for 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 and will be for any other release we "publish". Your code will be specifically looking for the version it was built against and if it isn't there, the RSL will be downloaded. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Fotis Chatzinikos Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:47 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big... Thanks Alex, the following makes much sense!: >>Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching. The framework is >>specially signed and loaded into a >>special cache and used for all domains. >>Normally RSLs are per-domain. Any ideas on the version of the rsl? Ie if i am using v xxx.2 and xxx.3 is cached (later/newer) will it be ok or it will need to download my older version rsl? On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching. The framework is specially signed and loaded into a special cache and used for all domains. Normally RSLs are per-domain. Flex is a framework. Most frameworks focus on making development easier by letting the developer set a flag and get different behavior. By definition, that means there is a lot of code there just in case you need it, so that means that you'll always be able to write a smaller app by doing it yourself and not carrying any "just-in-case" code you know you don't need. FWIW, because some members of my extended family and friends are still on dialup, I still publish content they will be looking at w/o using Flex. Takes a bit longer, but it is pretty simple content and size and compatibility with older players is more important. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Ralf Bokelberg Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big... Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is really more about enterprise development process, less about technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your 500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably. Ralf. On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan <[email protected]<mailto:ultraky%40gmail.com>> wrote: > It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like saying > 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our > Flash app?' Unless you > > Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly > released in June 2006. Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that Flex > is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me. > It's all Flash.... and soon Flex will have a new name so..... > > On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote: > > This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the > newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans > to have more interactive widgets in the future. > > -- Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D. Founder, Phinnovation [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, -- Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D. Founder, Phinnovation [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>,
