In my world, 300 milliseconds does matter. 10 sequential calls and you have 3 seconds of latency, which is definitely in the realm of something the end user would notice.
Sometimes the end user is a key decision maker comparing two apps side-by-side and making a judgment call as to which one will be further developed. Sometimes the one that feels "snappier" wins. Do I think I should have to be making 10 sequential web service calls? No. But then again, I don't develop web services. -----Original Message----- From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Wolf Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:20 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides I simply have to disagree here. We can demonstrate several in production applications which we have developed using SOAP XML WebServices and they perform like a champ. One of them was the runner up for last years MAX award. The majority of the applications we develop use this architecture and to date not a single time has a client nor a user complained about the performance of runtime data services based on SOAP. There are a few false rumors that continue to creep up in the Flex community about the performance issues around SOAP. There are benchmarks which show that AMF can be drastically faster than a SOAP call for the same data. Sometimes even 100% faster. Yup that's true there are. But you have to peel away the layers of the onion to see the reality. Statistics can be misleading. For instance, if AMF is 300 milliseconds and SOAP is 600 milliseconds the 100% difference isnt even relative. How many people do you know who can even see 1/3 of a seconds difference? In the end raw marshalling isnt the issue, it is the user and their experience. Flex2 made DRASTIC improvements it the performance of XML parsing and in our own benchmarks the delta between the two services choices is often as low as 10%. Of a much greater impact that the marshalling time is the UI "shredding" and binding of the data. Most badly performing RIA's suffer from data being returned from the back-end in a format that holds no fidelity with the RIA. This requires the RIA to tear apart the returned structural data and place it into its own structures and objects and bind those to UI controls. Developing your user experience in a front-to-back approach which assures great fidelity between the data formats of the tiers can account for an order of magnitude performance increase. That is the kind of performance increase users will actually experience. There are many other very smart things you can do like extending existing controls to do streaming rendering of data to provide the perception of speed, server side paging, caching, etc. In the end perception is reality. All that matters from the UI perspective is the experience that the user has. Worring about 300 milliseconds is like trying to debate the number of angels that could dance on the end of a pin. If the user can't see them, it doesn't matter how many there are. The running rumor that you simply cannot develop first class RIAs in Flex using a SOAP web services back-end is simply not accurate, and we have the apps in production with our clients to prove it. -- Dave Wolf Cynergy Systems, Inc. Adobe Flex Alliance Partner http://www.cynergysystems.com http://www.cynergysystems.com/blogs Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: 866-CYNERGY --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Shannon Hicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bob- > > Web Services / HTTP services are not built to be the primary backend of your > flex applications. Because they are XML based, they have quite a bit more > overhead than flex's built-in AMF (Action Message Format). AMF is smaller, > faster and uses less bandwidth than XML. AMF is what FDS and ColdFusion > 7.0.2 use to communicate to a Flex app. > > So let's say that your question is narrowed down to "FDS or CF?". Adobe's > ideal answer is "yes." They are complimentary to each other, CF allows for > wonderful rapid development of Flex apps, and FDS brings some amazing > features to the table through it's Messaging an Data Management services. > > Web Services (SOAP) support is in Flex primarily to consume third-party > data, allowing you to add it to your app. > > Hope this points you in the right direction. > > Shan > > _____ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of rhlarochelle > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:27 AM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - > which provides best functionality > > > > Franck, > > I appreciate your respons. When you say Remote Objects/Flex Data > Services provides the most advanced way of interoperating with the > backend, what specifically is possible? > > What are the capabilities that I would get leveraging Remote > Objects/Flex Data Services that I would not get (or would be difficult > to implement) with Web services or HTTP services. If there are > resources on the Adobe site that spell this out, please point me to them. > > Since we are looking at the different possibilities and we have > somewhat of a blank slate, the more I can go into this with open eyes > the better. I appreciate everyone who responded being willing to guide > someone new to this architecture. > > Thanks, > Bob > > --- In HYPERLINK > "mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com"[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Franck de > Bruijn" > <franck.de.bruijn@> wrote: > > > > Flex is supposed to be backend independent. So you should choose the > > technology you're most comfortable with. > > > > > > > > There are in general 3 ways of integrating with your back-end: > > > > * webservices: total freedom, but can turn out to be hard. Especially > > with .Net there are some problems, although Adobe is working to fix > it. With > > Java/Axis, you'll probably find no issues. > > * Remote Objects / Flex Data Services. The most advanced way of > > interoperating with your back-end, but requires JAVA on the backend. > > * HTTP services: simple HTTP calls. For simple interfaces it will > > work, but for the more complex ones it will be insufficient. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Franck > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: HYPERLINK > "mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com"[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:HYPERLINK > "mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com"[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of rhlarochelle > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:47 AM > > To: HYPERLINK > "mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com"[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [flexcoders] Choice of backend systems - which provides best > > functionality > > > > > > > > I am new to Flex 2, and have the opportunity to develop a new > > application. Given all of the choices of back end technology out there > > (J2EE, Coldfusion, PHP), which will provide for the richest user > > experience? > > > > It seems that leveraging J2EE and Java gives the best potential for > > sharing objects (and updates to objects ) over the wire. Have I got > > this right? > > > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4 - Release Date: 8/21/2006 > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4 - Release Date: 8/21/2006 > -- 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 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/
