Ted, If one were to standardize their efforts on Flash Player 8.5 how would they implement this on the Web Service side if they were using NetBeans, for example.
In-line with the ADMIN's recent guidelines, may I suggestion one more? ... and that would be that when someone goes into detail about something, that they, if it's convenient, provide URLs to places where those who are less experienced can begin to learn about the technology mentioned; e.g. GZIP on both the FLEX and Web Service side. I intend to use Apache Tomcat and I'm hoping that a JSP environment and using the NetBeans IDE proves well for this. -r --- Theodore E Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just FYI: > > Flash 8.5 Player supports GZIP compression in the > Socket Class. Ideally > using plain XML, you can exchange GZIP'd XML binary > files thus compressing > the data exchange both ways. Also given that XML > Parsing in 8.5 is much > faster than 7/8 generation players, we will see data > exchange with 8.5 > become a more level playing field. Plus with E4X > exchanging raw XML in a > custom format is far simpler that it used to be. We > will see an explosion of > data exchange technology with F8.5. > > In the end, I think the technology choice is more > appropriate to what skill > set you have in-house. There are a ton of great Web > Service development > tools, where AMF only resides within the Flash > space. Having worked with > Cynergy on a Flex/Web Services project with hundreds > of transactions per > session, Web Service with AXIS/Tomcat is rock solid. > Plus you really cannot > beat free in this case especially in regards to > scalability. > > My 2 Cents, > > Ted :) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Dave Wolf > > Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 5:22 PM > > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Open source AMF > solutions that work with flex > > > > > > > following pros and cons as they relate to SOAP > vs. AMF. > > > > > > - AMF requires less bandwidth > > > - AMF is faster to parse on the client side > > > - AMF parsing time grows linearly, SOAP > exponentially > > > - SOAP is usually easier to debug > > > - SOAP is easier to extend server side handling > > > - SOAP is more widely supported by server and > application vendors > > > - SOAP is open and well documented > > > > > > Any one else want to add to that list? > > > > > > > The only extreemly important things you left off > are that > > > > - AMF requires the use of the FlashGateway and > linking your POJO code > > to the FlashGateway libraries (such as Gateway > class to get references > > to the HttpRequest etc) > > - AMF is not interoperable with third parties like > SOAP would be. > > > > If I could sum up my point through this whole > discussion as succinctly > > as possible, I want to get across that these > decisions should be > > driven by your enterprise architecture. They > should not be driven by > > blanket statements like AMF & binary protocols > good and fast, SOAP and > > XML slow and bad. No IT topology answer is that > simple. > > > > Each has their advantages, each alligns > differently into your overall > > architectures and requirements. In the end, you > should make an > > *informed* decision. Experiences from folks that > have deployed > > enterprise class Flex applications into production > should be a gold > > mine for those working on doing the same in the > future. > > > > > > -- > > Dave Wolf > > Cynergy Systems, Inc. > > Macromedia Flex Alliance Partner > > http://www.cynergysystems.com > > > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Office: 866-CYNERGY x85 > > > > > > > > > The best public performance information that I > have seen is from > > FlashOrb: > > > > http://www.flashorb.com/articles/soap_vs_flash_remoting_benchmark.shtml > > > This is slightly outdated since the release of > Flash 8. The memory > > leaks > > > the article mentions have been addressed in > later versions of Flash 7. > > > > > > An important distinction between the FlashOrb > benchmarks and the ones > > > Anatole posted are that these are comparing SOAP > and AMF from within the > > > Flash Player. I believe Anatole was comparing > AMF in the Player to > > SOAP in > > > IE. > > > > > > Another part of the discussion was some excited > comments about something > > > called E4X or ECMAScript for XML. This is > really only a new syntax for > > > traversing and writing xml. Kind of a > Actionscript meets XPath > > thing. I > > > would also expect that the rewriting of the > Flash XML parsers will bring > > > some dramatic improvements to performance. For > details on E4X check > > out the > > > ECMAScript 4.0 specifications. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Thompson > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:44 PM > > > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Open source AMF > solutions that work > > with flex > > > > > > Would either of you mind giving people like me a > > > one-liner and perhaps a url to an introduction > to the > > > issue you are talking about? > > > > > > It sounds quite interesting, but I'm afraid I'm > lost. > > > > > > -r > > > > > > --- Anatole Tartakovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Kevin, > > > > We had performance as a priority as weel . > As a > > > > result we went further > > > > in reduction of metadata in packages by > generating > > > > client-side proxies for > > > > all server-side methods thus giving much > smaller > > > > footprint then SOAP or AMF. > > > > That was really minor improvememnt though - > main > > > > benefits were in ability to > > > > extend the set of basic types to framework > specific > > > > data types. The real > > > > performance issues start with thousands of > rows in ( > > > > im most cases) > > > > relational format. AMF goes to some extent in > those > > > > (and I was very pleased > > > > with performance results) but final > performance is > > > > going to depend on > > > > ability to search, filter and render portions > of > > > > information. Moreover, when > > > > you apply changes to those you need to > "remember" > > > > old state and some other > > > > info - XML allows you to extend itself for > "data > > > > aware framework" eathier > > > > then arrays. > > > > I can only relate to my benchmarks. Here > is what > > > > I observed for 20K > > > > rows/5 columns result sets on the same > client/server > === message truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/nhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
