This is due to Google not yet executing network requests from the SWF. Something that they're working on.
Matt On 4/21/09 11:19 PM, "bsyyu" <ben.s...@gmail.com> wrote: Apart from the size matter, we encounter the problem for Google engine working with signed RSL matter , the result of Google Serach for the website that use signed RSL with "Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1." Any comments for this --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , Matt Chotin <mcho...@...> wrote: > > We're hosting the RSLs starting with Flex 4, you'll see them hosted in the > public beta. > > When we feel comfortable with the RSL penetration stats as far as being > consistent and accurate and explainable we'll begin publishing them. > > Matt > > > On 4/21/09 11:01 PM, "Steve Mathews" <happy...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > No offence was intended, I was trying to state that as a selling point. The > number of users who already have the SWZs should be icing, the real substance > should be the benifit to every user visiting your site/app. Obviously if you > only expect users to visit once or twice the benifit doesn't work out. > > The problem with Adobe including the files with the first install is that > there are new files for each update of the Flex Framework. I am currently on > my third set of SWZs in my production environment. I would like to see Adobe > host the files as an added benifit to using them. > > I would also be interested in seeing some stats on the number of installed > players that have one or more SWZs cached as it would be additional info to > help sell the idea to clients. > > Steve > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Guy Morton <g...@...> wrote: > > > Yes, I know how it works...my point is that it's hard to sell to my current > clients if for most it's going to translate into a bigger download for first > time users. > > This is why stats as to how many users are likely to already have the > different versions of the RSLs would be handy. > > I realise this is probably strategically sensitive for Adobe as they want to > encourage use of RSLs as it improves the Flex download size story longer term. > > Someone made the suggestion somewhere that when users upgrade or install the > player, Adobe ought to download and install all the current RSLs as well. > That seems a very sensible idea to me. > > Even if they were a separate download available at the time (or available as > a "Flash player professional" version) it would be better than forcing > developers distributing apps to do it. We have app size as an imperative that > we have to work with. > > Guy > > On 22/04/2009, at 4:19 AM, Steve Mathews wrote: > > > > > It would only be bigger the first download (assuming the user has 9.0.115.0 > or later). After that it would be smaller each time. > > > Steve > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Guy Morton <g...@...> wrote: > > > Well...yes, it's great if I do it...for the community n'all...but my users > *are* sensitive to the download size. > > If it were the same size either way, of course I would do it (as would > everyone) but the fact that it's BIGGER as RSLs means I bet LOTS of > developers DON'T do it, hence my question... > > Guy > > > On 21/04/2009, at 6:19 PM, Tom Chiverton wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday 21 Apr 2009, g...@... wrote: > > Maybe it's worth doing if 50%+ of users will get the benefit, but if > > only 10% will benefit it seems unlikely to be a way to increase the > > general happiness. > > I think you are looking at it wrong. Assuming 200k is nothing on a modern > connection - I don't know anything about your users of course :-) > With RSL you either load quicker (win) or have to download app+RSL (same as > non-RSL), plus you have the benefit of making your (and others !) future RSL > deployments more likely to be win. > > > -- > Helping to synergistically streamline proactive cross-platform seamless > ubiquitous interfaces as part of the IT team of the year, '09 and '08 > > > Tom Chiverton > Developer > Tel: +44 0161 618 5032 > Fax: +44 0161 618 5099 > tom.chiver...@... > > 3 Hardman Square, Manchester, M3 3EB > www.Halliwells.com <http://www.halliwells.com/> > **************************************************** > > This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. > > Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and > Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at > Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list > of members is available for inspection at the registered office together with > a list of those non members who are referred to as partners. We use the word > ?partner? to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with > equivalent standing and qualifications. Regulated by the Solicitors > Regulation Authority. > > CONFIDENTIALITY > > This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may > be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must > not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor > inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence > or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and > notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500. > > For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.Halliwells.com > <http://www.halliwells.com/> . >
