On 8/25/07, Jeffry Houser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > hank williams wrote: > > > > > > > > So in your mind, Adobe's goal of being cross platform should be > > > > abandoned since there is no way to do cross-platform COM? Would you > > > > find it acceptable if it allowed you to do Mac only desktop stuff or > > > > does windows only compatible == desktop software? > > > > > > I think Adobe should provide hooks that allow extension, for instance > > > by Java. If it so happens that a third-party or homegrown extension > > > *happens* not to be cross-platform, AIR itself will still be cross- > > > platform. It shouldn't be Adobe's business to enforce that > > > everything that could ever be used by AIR would have to be cross- > > > platform. > > > > > > For example, both Authorware and Director (Adobe's desktop > > > application building programs) are both cross-platform but allow > > > extension via Xtras and other means. Not all of those Xtras are > > > cross-platform, but developers still find them incredibly useful, > > > either because they are only working on one platform or because they > > > can work around the gap in some other way on the other platform. > > > > You cant really compare AIR to authorware and director. These were > > both very thinly deployed tools (compared to flash) > > Shouldn't we be comparing them to AIR in this case? I'd be willing to > bet that AIR's deployment (at this stage) is very thinly deployed. Yes, > AIR has Flash Player embedded, but AIR != Flash >
Actually, AIR uses special non publicly available pieces of the flash platform to make installing totally seamless. When you click on an AIR app to download, it it leverages this not publicly available stuff to download the AIR runtime in the background. So they are leveraging the presence of flash to facilitate the installation of the runtime. This is a *big* deal and feels very different from downloading an exe in explorer. If it's not a big deal for your apps you can, as I said, just use one of the many flash to exe projectors out there. Also, Director and Authorware cant really be compared to AIR because neither of them was based on a runtime separate from the application being installed on the users computer. Being a completely self contained download made it more appropriate to allow these tools to bring DLLs or Xtras with them. Anything can be bundled in a stand-alone download, but AIR apps are not exe's and are dependent on the AIR runtime. This is a critical architectural difference. > > I think they may eventually add additional layers of access to the > > system, but I doubt that they will ever go as far as you would like > > because the responsibility is too great for a browser connected tool. > > I wouldn't consider AIR a browser connected tool. It does have an > embedded browser, but... > > The ability to integrate with the local system (Via an execute type > command) is almost mandatory for non-connected applications. It sounds like you are saying that there is no market for AIR. Based on the general reaction from the developer community, I would have to disagree. Of course perhaps you are just trying to say that given that AIR's focus on occasionally connected applications, that there isnt such a need for access to DLLs and such. If so I would whole heartedly agree. At this > time, it does not appear that AIR fits that market very well (nor are > they targeting the market.. ) > > If you need to run DLLs / COM / etc... then AIR probably isn't a good > choice. > This is clearly true. Hank
