Woohoo :) Well that solves my problem pretty well :).
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Piller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> We're about to open up AMF3 and make it available in the free Standard
> Edition. Stay tuned for an announcement. I will post more info once
> the release is available (should be any moment now).
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Samuel R. Neff" <srneff.lists@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > AMF3 is a new format and is more compact than AMF0. It doesn't
> duplicate
> > custom class definitions or strings and has some other optimizations.
> >
> > AMF0 is still good though and more efficient than any non-binary
> > communications (ie AJAX XML or JSON).
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Sam
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team
> building Flex
> > based products. Position is in the Washington D.C. metro area. If
> interested
> > contact careers@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Nate Pearson
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:13 PM
> > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [flexcoders] WebOrb and the new Flex Article question
(AMF0 vs
> > AMF3)
> >
> > I've skimmed through the new Flex Article about remoting to .NET
> > through webOrb. Sounds pretty cool and I'm looking to forward to
> > trying it out.
> >
> > On the webOrb licensing page it says that the Standard (free) Edition
> > of WebORB allows for Flash Remoting (AMF0) but not Flex Remoting
> (AMF3).
> >
> > What's the difference? Is one faster? Can I not use webOrb for free
> > with flex? (I don't want to limit my self to 5 ips with the developer
> > edition) I thought flex was flash, so it seems like AMF0 would work?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
