Hank -
Bingo! This is exactly my concern. I love Flex... but building a
"bloated" application of 500k--> 1Mb for the consumer space is not
"attractive".
I hope in the next releases of Flex they address the ability to design
your application so the initial load module can be small with the
ability to "fetch" more modules (small) as the user "drills down" into
the application's functionality?
.j
hank williams said the following:
My point wasnt that big app modularity isnt important. My only
point is that if your app is 2 or 3 mb you can already modularize it
with the current rsl technology whereas you cant modularize the flex
framework at all currently. I understand that roger's stuff is going to
make big app moduarity easier. But, again making something easier that
is already possible, is different than making something that is
impossible possible.
Flex 1.5 was clearly just an enterpise product. Flex 2.0 moved into the
mainstream, and a lot of us are, I suspect, trying to figure out how to
use it effectively for consumer facing applications, Flex is now the
cornerstone of Flash application development, but for lots of
applications 500-600 is too big for a consumer facing app.
The other thing is that for enterprise apps, if you did have to load
2-3 mb on an intranet, or even over the internet, its just not that big
a deal.
Regards,
Hank
On 10/24/06, Carlos Rovira <carlos.rovira@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hank,
Both issues are important. Flex is a product born for enterprise
applications (for intranets, extranets,etc. ..).
It can be used for normal website as well, but maybe Adobe created it
in the beggining to reach the big enterprise.
Big apps is the normal basis in this kind of projects and modular apps
are a real must. The main reason is get better compiler times and
productivity and then better performance. Maybe internet's homepage
with a few controls and use cases is not the soul behind the flex
framework, but I agree that it shuld be possible as well in order to
get a real "flexible" technology.
Just my thoughts.
Best.
C.
On 10/24/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>
wrote:
My situation is not a huge app, but I think probably fits in a
fairly mainstream situation.
I have several "sections" that a user could access. I am most concerned
about the access to my homepage which is going to get hit a lot. I
really would like to have a homepage that was 200k rather than 600k.
400 of that 600 is probably framework. So I am trying to figure out how
to have a high volume homepage that is reasonable, where a user can
click and then suck in more code as they dig deeper. That said, my
homepage does use a datagrid, which I suspect is pretty heavy. But part
of the problem is not having a clear map as to what I might leave off
the homepage that would substantially improve the size issue.
I think for people that have really huge apps, if their initial page
load is 500k, and then the rest of their app gets loaded as needed,
that there is already enough there with the current RSL and doc to do
that.
I guess what I am saying is that I think my situation is in more need
of help than people with really big apps because the really huge apps
can already be done modularly. I understand that you are making it
better. but making flex a viable homepage tool is really a bigger issue
I think.
Regards,
Hank
On 10/23/06, Matt Chotin <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]com> wrote:
The modules
will help reduce your app and
can be used to help reduce break the framework up as well so that only
pieces
that are needed will be in modules that you're using. We will have
improved
support + docs for that in the next release. We are also working on
some
ideas/documentation for breaking the framework up a little more. With
that
said, if you are building a single app, you won't get much benefit from
an RSL. Only if your app is truly big, then it's the module approach
you
want more than RSL. RSLs come into play when you start having multiple
apps
that re-use the same code.
Matt
I have been glancing at Roger's blog, for the
last
month or two, but the one thing I am not clear on is whether the work
that he
is doing reduces the all or nothing nature of the actual flex
framework? I am
very clear on how to modularize my own code, but if the flex
framework's
dependecies are such that for anything meaningful you need to load
300-400k of
library then none of my modularization makes much difference because my
code is
small relative to the size of the library. While he acknowledges the
problem, I
can't find where Roger discusses much about whether all of the flex
framework
really needs to be dragged in the way it is now, and if his new stuff
helps to
fix this.
Regards
Hank
On 10/23/06, David
Mendels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>
wrote:
Hello,
Roger's blog
might be helpful:
http://blogs.adobe.com/rgonzalez/flex/
-David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com]
On Behalf Of John
Kirby
Sent: Monday,
October 23, 2006
7:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com
Subject:
[flexcoders] Flex
Deployment Best Practices
I'm about to deploy my first Flex application.
I have tried to modularize my components as much as
possible.
What I'm looking for is some best practices on when/why
you
create RSLs, SWFs, etc to "break up" your application so it runs
efficiently. I know there are some trade-offs here... just looking for
some reference guidelines for the "ilities" ( scalability,
maintainability,
etc.).
Thanks.
.j
--
Whether
you think that you can, or that you can't, you are usually right.
- Henry Ford
::| Carlos Rovira
::|
http://www.carlosrovira.com
::| http://www.madeinflex.com
--
Whether you think that you can, or that you
can't, you are usually right.
- Henry Ford
__._,_.___
--
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
__,_._,___
|
