You know what confuses me though over all this, why hasn't Adobe
cached the Flex framework in the Flash Player? An additional 500k on
the player download would be a miniscule inconvenience in time for the
user, the way it stands the time added reflects poorly on the actual
Flex application.
Releases of the flex framework sdk for caching and flash player
releases are not so often for that to be a hurdle, surely?
If Adobe are (a) reluctant to release statistics on how many players
have the framework cached and (b) not going to help push these stats
up by caching the framework in the player, its going to be a constant
concern for the developer.
On 27 Apr 2009, at 09:30, Kenneth Sutherland wrote:
Hmmm, maybe it’s just me and I’ve missed that bit of info from
before but I’ve never heard/read anything about Google not being
able to index a SWF if you use the RSL feature on the framework.
This seems like a fairly major step to get over ( I may have to go
back and rebuild some of my SWFs so that they will now get indexed)
if you want the number of SWFs that use the framework feature to go
up. All info I’ve seen out there suggests Google can index any SWF.
I bet most clients are more sensitive to their data not being index
than being slightly bloated.
Kenneth.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Matt Chotin
Sent: 24 April 2009 21:52
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration
Yes, that’s what it means unfortunately. I don’t have a info on
timing, it’s really up to them.
On 4/24/09 12:51 AM, "Kenneth Sutherland" <kenneth.sutherl...@realise.com
> wrote:
Does that mean that any swf you create that uses the flex framework
RSLs are not going to get indexed by Google.
I’ve created a very simple placeholder page (single front page with
just a few text boxes and a link) and as usual I make the framework
into a RSL(total overkill in this situation, but I like to do it as
standard). So I’ve just checked the site using googles search and
its showing the ‘Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1.’ in the listing of
search results.
If so any ideas what is Googles timescale on indexing sites that use
RSLs.
Cheers.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Matt Chotin
Sent: 23 April 2009 01:38
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration
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/> .
>
Disclaimer
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of
the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
received this electronic message in error, please notify us by
telephone on 0131 476 6000 and delete the material from your computer.
Registered in Scotland number: SC 172507.
Registered office address: Quay House 142 Commercial Street
Edinburgh EH6 6LB.
This email message has been scanned for viruses by Mimecast.
Disclaimer
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of
the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
received this electronic message in error, please notify us by
telephone on 0131 476 6000 and delete the material from your computer.
Registered in Scotland number: SC 172507.
Registered office address: Quay House 142 Commercial Street
Edinburgh EH6 6LB.
This email message has been scanned for viruses by Mimecast.
