Hi, First of all, thx for your responses.
The file size increase introduce here is not just the RSL classes that I don't need. The size increase is much larger then that. My application is like make up of Core App "CA", a share code library "SCL" and 100 modules "Ms". The "CA" is mainly nothing but a login screen. So user can login after a few hundred byte loaded. If success, the "SCL" and first "M" will be loaded. The "M" is very small in size, not bigger then 30 k, which is defined according to the business usuage. So only when an user need to perform an particalur aciton, corresponding "M" will be loaded. In Flex 3, "CA" and "SCL" are smaller, (not taking account the size of the signed library from Adobe, as you mentioned, it actually is larger, but just for the first time.) However, each "Ms" is larger a bit by the overhead increase in Flex 3 compilation. And those a bit, sum up to be a huge amount for the application. So you can imagine, if the app keep on growing, those amount will increase faster then if Flex 2 is used to compile it... Dan --- In [email protected], Nick Collins <ndcoll...@...> wrote: > > A big part of that reason is that when you attach any library, be it > the SDK or an external SWC, as a RSL, it is going to increase the size > of a singular app. The reason is that when a library is specified as > an RSL, the ENTIRE library gets loaded, not just the parts that are > "needed", since it doesn't know what classes will be needed. > Additionally, RSLs are all loaded at Frame 1, and are mandatory > (meaning all RSLs are required to be loaded), increasing the load time > if they haven't been downloaded previously. > > Where you see the major gains with RSLs is when you are using them > across multiple applications, because rather than re-download the RSL, > it will pull the RSL from the browser cache, speeding the load time, > although it is still loading more classes than otherwise. For this > reason RSLs are usually a bad idea for a single application, because > it will actually have a smaller size all compiled into a single SWF, > and loading bits of the application via modules, which are only loaded > as needed. > > Nick > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Dan <yldle...@...> wrote: > > Hi Flexcoders, > > > > It is always claimed that by caching framework.swz of Flex 3, the swf size > > is always the smaller. However. from the generated linked-report. in Flex 3, > > some classes like RSLloader and some ResourceBundle classes are being added, > > which actually increase the swf size. > > > > Since my application is making up of first loading a shared library, and > > then upon runtime, it loaded other very small modules. These modules are > > making up of very small file size (a few k byte), the overhead added by > > these Flex3 loaders and bundles has largly increase the TOTAL application > > size by a huge amount (cause there are hundreds of this kind of small > > modules when summing up the little increase of this overhead, it becomes M > > byte). The start up time is down a bit (loading the smaller library and > > smaller init app), but the overall brandwidth consumpt much more now. > > > > So is there any way to trim off those overhead? Or I need to compile those > > smaller modules by a Flex 2 compiler? > > > > Anyone have any idea? > > > > Dan > > > > >
