RE: [flexcoders] XMLEncoder Question [Flex 2.0 b1]

[Jason Hawryluk]

Thanks for your response.   Unfortunately I’m limited to using either web services or http. Remote Object though interesting, requires Flex Enterprise Services, and out of my budget as the project will scale to multiple servers. The project is also a hosted one, so server side costs have to be kept down so that our pricing can be competitive. The only real way I know to do this is eliminate licensing (SQL Server, Flex Enterprise etc..) That require a per server license.   In order to keep the DB Server licensing down we have decided that storing the final data in an xml format would be optimal from a cost stand point, and satisfactory from a performance stand point.   We are using .net web services for the back end, the db is only used for xml file lookup based on a passed guid and indexing. Because each xml item has a unique guid we only send the updates/requests over the wire not the entire xml file. The web services handle the updating of the master xml files. Each company/user has a specific master file set in order to keep them relatively small.   Relationships between company/user/xml files is defined in yet another set of xml files. Using the windows file system is many times quicker then db access, and offers a direct read performance gain. Using specific file pointers etc gives us optimal server side performance.                         No DB connection overhead (except lookup and indexing).             Easy and cost efficient clustering             Direct access for file reads/writes             Much lower infrastructure costs    Etc.etc.   Theoretically a server could handle many more times the transactions, and you can do more with less, in comparison to other options. However that said, it does have it’s downfalls and limitations as well.   Jason     -----Message d'origine----- De : flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]De la part de Matt Chotin Envoyé : vendredi 17 mars 2006 23:18 À : flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Objet : RE: [flexcoders] XMLEncoder Question [Flex 2.0 b1] Hmm, e4x is working pretty well in beta 1 as far as I know.  But binding from e4x was not really supported well though that support is better in b2 (I responded to another thread about this today I think).   I think lots of XML transferring back and forth is generally not the most efficient because it’s usually not compressed.  Even if you don’t want to tie yourself to a specific RDBMS there are server techniques (like Hibernate or DataAccessObjects) that abstract the DB away from you.  You can then use more efficient transfer mechanisms like RemoteObject with AMF.  But it’s really a matter of what’s right for your use-case.   Matt   From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Hawryluk Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:55 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [flexcoders] XMLEncoder Question [Flex 2.0 b1]   Thanks for the response Matt :)   I am trying to exclusively use e4x for exchanging data between the server and the client. I have a growing assumption that the e4x implementation is not quite ready in beta 1 based on the fact that often I need to devise a work around in order to properly use it. Am I correct?   For example binding sometimes causes binding warnings. I'm seeing that results returned/converted on the client to objects (not a formatted result as e4x) seem to behave better, and are smoother for Flex to consume.   80% of the data the client is consuming is stored as xml on the server. Not sure if it's the best way to do things but I want to eliminate as much as possible being locked into a specific RDMS. That said the DB is basically just for file lookup, search indexing, and user profiles.   Direct Disk access is much faster and consumes less resources then having your web service poll the db, then transform to xml then send over the wire. Especially when working with multiple table relationships. Say if a Task can be related to many contacts. Storing this relation in xml gets rid of allot of overhead on the server side, and seems natural for xml file formats.   I need to be able to load it, modify it, then send it back in a xml format to a web service which has the job of serializing the physical file to the users storage space.   This has gotten off topic, sorry. I should probably start a new post, but what is (if there is) the preferred way to store/access data from your point of view?   Anyone else please jump in here ;)   Jason    -----Message d'origine----- De : flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]De la part de Matt Chotin Envoyé : mercredi 15 mars 2006 07:55 À : flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Objet : RE: [flexcoders] XMLEncoder Question [Flex 2.0 b1] It's not really documented right now.  However all it will do is convert an XML structure into an anonymous object graph.  It's not useful for deserializing to typed classes.  So in many respects you're often better off just using e4x unless getting typed objects is important. Matt -----Original Message----- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of sourcecoderia Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 1:54 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] XMLEncoder Question [Flex 2.0 b1] Any one know where i can find more info or examples on the XMLEncoder? Or has anyone used this yet for encoding objects to xml ? Samples, pointers, idea? Thanks Jason -- 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 -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Web site design development Computer software development Software design and development Macromedia flex Software development best practice YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.