Hi Marcelo, There is really nothing that you could do with one approach that you couldn't do with the other. The real difference between the two approaches is the size of the download (in the compile on request model you can send the bare minimum), and where you want the work to be done (client side or server side).
Also, if you had proprietary logic that you wanted to keep off the client, server side compilation would be a good thing to do. Scott On 26/04/07, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting stuff, Scott. I think it would be interesting to discuss the > benefits of compiling the swf on the server side versus pre-compiling it. I > think there are many different aspects and possibilities when you compile it > on the fly, right? What could you implement using this paradigm that you > couldn't when pre-compiling the swf, for example? > > > > On 3/26/07, Scott Hyndman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Danny, > > > > I will be using it to generate quiz SWFs. There will be thousands of > > permutations and the logic required to properly assemble the steps of > > the quiz may be quite complicated (and large). I'm avoiding keeping it > > on the client. > > > > We may also be using it for "license" SWFs, although I'm still working > > out how I'd like it to work. > > > > So no comments on performance as of yet. Not in any sort any sort of > > production environment. However, I will be doing things like compiling > > against intrinsics, and only exposing the container API to the quiz > > page to keep compile times down. > > > > Scott > > > > On 26/03/07, DannyT < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > looks good scott, will take a look at it, have you any comments on > > > performance? What are you using it for and is it standing up to the job > > > okay? > > > > > > > > > On 23/03/07, Ian Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > Great stuff, and probably more stable than the PHP I currently use > > > > to do the same job. Thanks - I'll put it on my 'things to look at' > > > > list. :-) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > On 3/23/07, Scott Hyndman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Whoops. Better link: > http://www.scotthyndman.ca/?p=73 > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > osflash mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://danny-t.co.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > > > osflash mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > osflash mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
