subject:"Re\: \[Junk E\-Mail \- LOW\] \[flexcoders\] Re\: Choice of backend systems \- which provides"













 Id like to hear the first
story that changing webservices by AMF increased the user experience
significantly and sealed a certain business proposition.



I was developing a Flash front-end for an
existing .Net application. The Flash app used web services, whereas the
.Net app was able to access SQL stored procedures and such directly. The
.Net app was slightly more responsive, due to the fact that less data was being
sent over the wire, as well as the extra parsing time. Long story short,
the Flash app got canned because it was being compared side by side to a faster
alternative. If I could have convinced them to give AMF a shot, Im
sure we couldve got those performance issues ironed out.











From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Franck de Bruijn
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
1:33 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides





Hi Ted,



We all understand your arguments 1 and 2.
But in the end, and thats already identified in this topic, its the
user experience that counts. If it does not suffer by using web services,
its not an issue! Id like to hear the first story that changing
webservices by AMF increased the user experience significantly and sealed a
certain business proposition.



For argument 3 Developer
Productivity its true that developers need to program more lines
of code to obtain the same result (having your webservice result as an
ActionScript object), which is, I admit, error prone. But in the total view of
the costs of a development project ... it will not make much of a difference.
The actual additional lines of code Im talking about, however, are very
easy to generate from a model if you wish.



Again, FDS is cool, really true and it
does have its place. But for many applications FDS (including the extra
features messaging and data management) is neither an option nor necessary.



Cheers,

Franck 











From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006
6:47 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides













AMF is
faster in 3 fundamental ways:




 Bandwidth Size  Smaller, lighter,
 faster!!!





 Parsing Speed  Less work on both client
 and server!!!





 Developer Productivity  Less work for
 developers!!!




Web
Services are dependent on XML Parsing on both the client and server side.
Although its a good story, XML parsers are not very efficient as parsing
documents is an interpreted process. The Flash Player XML parser will always be
dramatically slower than AMF parsing, binary formats are notoriously faster in
this regard. 



XML
parsing additionally decays rapidly as the file size increases. Flash Player XML
parsing time increase non-linearly with larger XML documents. With AMF parsing
times are linear with data size. The XML decay can be attributed to the number
of inner objects that need to be created during a parsing run. AMF objects are
1:1 with the data received where XML data is 1:N per Elements/Attribute.



Comparing
XML to AMF is an unfair race, AMF wins every time. When you add in the overhead
of WS SOAP parsing atop the base XML parser speed you begin to see performance
issues. With SOAP, you interpret an XML document back into typed objects
depending on the SOAP specifics used. Sure 350ms is ok once or twice, but try
doing 200 transactions in this format and you will see performance issues
arise. Using Web Services you are forcing the Flash Player to do allot of
unneeded work. The goal is to build richer applications, not burn up player
performance in crud operations.



Additionally
non-proxied Web Service use suffers with Flash Player because of the browser
variation in the plug-in APIS. You cannot get the 500 Errors response content
in IE and thus the SOAP fault standard breaks down. In SOAP there are important
messages that arrive with 500 Errors and the inability of the Flash Player to
receive these is a problem. Unfortunately there is no seamless way to get 500
Errors into the Flash Player other then rewriting an HTTP Client in the Socket
class. This effort would also require a new SOAP library within Flex and socket
use on low ports requires a more complex crossdomain.xml configuration.
Even then you still suffer the same performance issues.



Performance
aside, the productivity discussion is much more important. AMF3 and Flex Data
Services are wildly productive. Once you compile your Java Class and configure
a destination in FDS (1 XML Element), you are done. All typing is handled, All
methods are ready to run with any number of client applications. It is the
easiest way to create a server side API that I know of. Actually most cases,
implementing FDS will removes $20,000 of developer time wasted on implementing
other data

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

Frank,

RPC IS LESS THAN 25% OF FLEX DATA SERVICES!!!

Flex Data Services is so much more that RPC. This entire discussion is really 
FDS.RPC to WebServices. 

FDS contains 4 major parts:

1. Messaging - ASMessaging and JMSMessaging
2. Data Management - Data Synchronization and Distributed ArrayCollections
3. Web Tier Compiler - Compilation of AS/MXML on the server side.
4. RPC - Remoting and WebService Proxy

Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!! 
Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!! 
Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!! 

Web Services burns up player performance that you could be using to make the 
user experience better. When working in Flash Player, everything affects 
performance. If you abuse the player in one area, you limit what you can do 
elsewhere before the player starts to slow down. The Flash Player (like all 
software) is limited in capability; if you spend that capability doing hard 
things (read Web Services) then you will not be able to do other things. On a 
high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower machine it can take 
3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger the data exchanged, the worse it 
gets. Not good.

With Flash Player it is important to keep things light and fast. Web Services 
are abusive to the Flash Player runtime. Support is included for integration 
purposes but it was really not designed as an optimized way to exchange data. 

Web Services view:

Flash Player Receives XML ASCII Text
XML Parsing → XML Parsing!!!
SOAP Parsing occurs to AS Objects → Traverse SOAP Objects Recursively!!!
Objects are passed into events

RemoteObject:
Flash Player Receives AMF Data
AMF Binary Decoding → Direct to typed objects.
Objects are passed into events

I am sure there are many smart people out there who will get WebServices to 
work well for them with Flex. It is a lot of hard work to make this work well 
and I have only seen one company do it really well. I do not doubt that others 
will make this work reliably but I question its use. It will affect performance 
which is why AMF was created in the first place as an optimized data exchange 
format for Flash Player. 

One of the key advantages for WebServices is the wide availability of Web 
Service clients for any language. With AMF we only have one client( Flash 
Player ) and several AMF servers. One key enterprise objection to using AMF is 
the lack of AMF  clients for integration. 

Cases:
- PHP form could remote to FDS
- C++ application joins FDS messaging as a client
- Java process remotes to FDS
- Python process remotes to Data Services for Ruby (MidnightCoders)
- C# remotes data with FDS as a client

Part of the distributed computing revolution is the realization that anything 
can be both a client and a server. One of the problem areas in FDS is that only 
Flash and Java:JMS can participate within the FDS as clients.

Would non-flash clients for AMF and Messaging help?

Regards,

Ted Patrick
Flex Evangelist
Adobe Systems Incorporated


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Franck 
de Bruijn
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:33 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - 
which provides

Hi Ted,
 
We all understand your arguments 1 and 2. But in the end, and that’s already 
identified in this topic, it’s the user experience that counts. If it does not 
suffer by using web services, it’s not an issue! I’d like to hear the first 
story that changing webservices by AMF increased the user experience 
significantly and sealed a certain business proposition.
 
For argument 3 ‘Developer Productivity’ it’s true that developers need to 
program more lines of code to obtain the same result (having your webservice 
result as an ActionScript object), which is, I admit, error prone. But in the 
total view of the costs of a development project ... it will not make much of a 
difference. The actual additional lines of code I’m talking about, however, are 
very easy to generate from a model if you wish.
 
Again, FDS is cool, really true and it does have its place. But for many 
applications FDS (including the extra features messaging and data management) 
is neither an option nor necessary.
 
Cheers,
Franck 


--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Claus Wahlers


 On a high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower 
 machine it can take 3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger 
 the data exchanged, the worse it gets. Not good.

Aren't you exaggerating a bit here? Can you give a real world example of 
a SOAP XML that takes 400ms to parse/consume on a high end machine? I 
mean, we're talking Flash Player 9, aren't we?

Cheers,
Claus.



--
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/

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

I can vouch for that statement, from my own personal experience.  If you're
working with large amounts of data, the lag is quite unacceptable.

-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Claus Wahlers
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:00 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems
- which provides

 On a high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower 
 machine it can take 3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger 
 the data exchanged, the worse it gets. Not good.

Aren't you exaggerating a bit here? Can you give a real world example of 
a SOAP XML that takes 400ms to parse/consume on a high end machine? I 
mean, we're talking Flash Player 9, aren't we?

Cheers,
Claus.

--
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/

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides













No I am not exaggerating.



Run a Web Services call on my mothers old Dell and you can
count the seconds. When AMF was first added to Flash Player 6, the primary
reason was performance on slow machines. AMF was much faster then and it
remains the case. XML parsing performance decays non-linearly on slower
machines and with larger xml documents.



Keep me honest Claus!



Ted Patrick

Flex Evangelist

Adobe Systems Incorporated

















From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Claus Wahlers
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
10:00 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides












 On a high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower 
 machine it can take 3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger 
 the data exchanged, the worse it gets. Not good.

Aren't you exaggerating a bit here? Can you give a real world example of 
a SOAP XML that takes 400ms to parse/consume on a high end machine? I 
mean, we're talking Flash Player 9, aren't we?

Cheers,
Claus.






__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Web site design development
  
  
Computer software development
  
  
Software design and development
  
  


Macromedia flex
  
  
Software development best practice
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

 One key enterprise objection to using AMF is the lack of AMF  clients for 
 integration.

 Would non-flash clients for AMF and Messaging help?

I can understand why it would be difficult to shell out $20K per proc for 
something that is solely for the Flash platform.  That's almost as much as SQL 
licenses.  Not feasible where I work.  If you have to use Flex Data Services to 
realize the full benefits of Flex, that high cost can lead teams to shy away 
from the Flash Platform because the remaining benefits may be less clear.

However, aside from the cost, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with 
putting middleware in place for a specific client.  Non-Flash clients can use 
whatever other communications protocols you like, which are possibly already in 
place.  Granted, you've got to test things thoroughly to make sure your 
existing environment is not affected by the installation of FDS (which can be a 
daunting task).

-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted 
Patrick
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:50 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - 
which provides

Frank,

RPC IS LESS THAN 25% OF FLEX DATA SERVICES!!!

Flex Data Services is so much more that RPC. This entire discussion is really 
FDS.RPC to WebServices. 

FDS contains 4 major parts:

1. Messaging - ASMessaging and JMSMessaging
2. Data Management - Data Synchronization and Distributed ArrayCollections
3. Web Tier Compiler - Compilation of AS/MXML on the server side.
4. RPC - Remoting and WebService Proxy

Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!! 
Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!! 
Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!! 

Web Services burns up player performance that you could be using to make the 
user experience better. When working in Flash Player, everything affects 
performance. If you abuse the player in one area, you limit what you can do 
elsewhere before the player starts to slow down. The Flash Player (like all 
software) is limited in capability; if you spend that capability doing hard 
things (read Web Services) then you will not be able to do other things. On a 
high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower machine it can take 
3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger the data exchanged, the worse it 
gets. Not good.

With Flash Player it is important to keep things light and fast. Web Services 
are abusive to the Flash Player runtime. Support is included for integration 
purposes but it was really not designed as an optimized way to exchange data. 

Web Services view:

Flash Player Receives XML ASCII Text
XML Parsing → XML Parsing!!!
SOAP Parsing occurs to AS Objects → Traverse SOAP Objects Recursively!!!
Objects are passed into events

RemoteObject:
Flash Player Receives AMF Data
AMF Binary Decoding → Direct to typed objects.
Objects are passed into events

I am sure there are many smart people out there who will get WebServices to 
work well for them with Flex. It is a lot of hard work to make this work well 
and I have only seen one company do it really well. I do not doubt that others 
will make this work reliably but I question its use. It will affect performance 
which is why AMF was created in the first place as an optimized data exchange 
format for Flash Player. 

One of the key advantages for WebServices is the wide availability of Web 
Service clients for any language. With AMF we only have one client( Flash 
Player ) and several AMF servers. One key enterprise objection to using AMF is 
the lack of AMF  clients for integration. 

Cases:
- PHP form could remote to FDS
- C++ application joins FDS messaging as a client
- Java process remotes to FDS
- Python process remotes to Data Services for Ruby (MidnightCoders)
- C# remotes data with FDS as a client

Part of the distributed computing revolution is the realization that anything 
can be both a client and a server. One of the problem areas in FDS is that only 
Flash and Java:JMS can participate within the FDS as clients.

Would non-flash clients for AMF and Messaging help?

Regards,

Ted Patrick
Flex Evangelist
Adobe Systems Incorporated


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Franck 
de Bruijn
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:33 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - 
which provides

Hi Ted,
 
We all understand your arguments 1 and 2. But in the end, and that’s already 
identified in this topic, it’s the user experience that counts. If it does not 
suffer by using web services, it’s not an issue! I’d like to hear the first 
story that changing webservices by AMF increased the user experience 
significantly and sealed a certain business proposition.
 
For argument 3 ‘Developer Productivity’ it’s true

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Douglas Knudsen

shouldn't we qualify some of this with 'depends on what data you are moving'?? I'm finding that using a REST call to return XML can be WAY faster then using RemoteObject for a reporting tool. In this case I could care less about the magically uber kewl mapping of AS -- CFC/POJOs, eh?
DKOn 8/24/06, Ted Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,RPC IS LESS THAN 25% OF FLEX DATA SERVICES!!!Flex Data Services is so much more that RPC. This entire discussion is really FDS.RPC to WebServices.FDS contains 4 major parts:1. Messaging - ASMessaging and JMSMessaging
2. Data Management - Data Synchronization and Distributed ArrayCollections3. Web Tier Compiler - Compilation of AS/MXML on the server side.4. RPC - Remoting and WebService ProxyUsing Web Services directly affects user experience!!!
Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!!Using Web Services directly affects user experience!!!Web Services burns up player performance that you could be using to make the user experience better. When working in Flash Player, everything affects performance. If you abuse the player in one area, you limit what you can do elsewhere before the player starts to slow down. The Flash Player (like all software) is limited in capability; if you spend that capability doing hard things (read Web Services) then you will not be able to do other things. On a high quality machine, WS can take 400ms, but on a slower machine it can take 3-10 seconds for a single call and the larger the data exchanged, the worse it gets. Not good.
With Flash Player it is important to keep things light and fast. Web Services are abusive to the Flash Player runtime. Support is included for integration purposes but it was really not designed as an optimized way to exchange data.
Web Services view:Flash Player Receives XML ASCII TextXML Parsing → XML Parsing!!!SOAP Parsing occurs to AS Objects → Traverse SOAP Objects Recursively!!!Objects are passed into eventsRemoteObject:
Flash Player Receives AMF DataAMF Binary Decoding → Direct to typed objects.Objects are passed into eventsI am sure there are many smart people out there who will get WebServices to work well for them with Flex. It is a lot of hard work to make this work well and I have only seen one company do it really well. I do not doubt that others will make this work reliably but I question its use. It will affect performance which is why AMF was created in the first place as an optimized data exchange format for Flash Player.
One of the key advantages for WebServices is the wide availability of Web Service clients for any language. With AMF we only have one client( Flash Player ) and several AMF servers. One key enterprise objection to using AMF is the lack of AMFclients for integration.
Cases:- PHP form could remote to FDS- C++ application joins FDS messaging as a client- Java process remotes to FDS- Python process remotes to Data Services for Ruby (MidnightCoders)- C# remotes data with FDS as a client
Part of the distributed computing revolution is the realization that anything can be both a client and a server. One of the problem areas in FDS is that only Flash and Java:JMS can participate within the FDS as clients.
Would non-flash clients for AMF and Messaging help?Regards,Ted PatrickFlex EvangelistAdobe Systems IncorporatedFrom:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Franck de BruijnSent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:33 PMTo:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which providesHi Ted,We all understand your arguments 1 and 2. But in the end, and that's already identified in this topic, it's the user experience that counts. If it does not suffer by using web services, it's not an issue! I'd like to hear the first story that changing webservices by AMF increased the user experience significantly and sealed a certain business proposition.
For argument 3 'Developer Productivity' it's true that developers need to program more lines of code to obtain the same result (having your webservice result as an ActionScript object), which is, I admit, error prone. But in the total view of the costs of a development project ... it will not make much of a difference. The actual additional lines of code I'm talking about, however, are very easy to generate from a model if you wish.
Again, FDS is cool, really true and it does have its place. But for many applications FDS (including the extra features messaging and data management) is neither an option nor necessary.Cheers,Franck
--Flexcoders Mailing ListFAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txtSearch Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! 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:

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

 I am sure there are many smart people out there who will
 get WebServices to work well for them with Flex. It is a
 lot of hard work to make this work well and I  have only
 seen one company do it really well. I do not doubt that
 others will make this work reliably but I question its use.
 It will affect performance which is why AMF was created
 in the first place as an optimized data exchange format for
 Flash Player.

I got around this problem by abstraction and preemptively loading data 
that was likely to be loaded. I made up template-like objects that the 
client loaded that describe what makes a page of data, which included all 
of the possible design elements and whatnot. That way, when you actually go 
to load the data, the size of the data going to and from the server was 
minimal (and compressed). And I preloaded large blocks of commonly used data 
and cached them on the client side, keeping it updated by sending an MD5 
hash back to the server-side to be compared to the current data set on a 
regular basis or whenever that data was accessed. For a dial-up user that 
might be a problem, but for a business app it didn't even cause a noticable 
bump in their bandwidth usage. You just have to plan appropriately and do 
thorough use cases, so that you can develop a set of rules that will tell 
you what data is likely to be needed next. All the most common usage paths 
through the app were fast and responsive, and only the really heavy stuff, 
like real time reports that go back over tons of db records and stuff, took 
any noticable time to load. The end result was 100% compatible with either 
an AJAX front end or a Flash front end, the back end didn't know or care 
which it was talking to.

With appropriate planning and a good architecture, which transport 
method you use is almost irrelevant as long as it is flexible and 
compatible. ;-)

ryanm 



--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

I have to agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was considering various means of connecting to my java server during the transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services.
Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and running. But, honestly, I gave up after several days of study.The Axis umailing list was fairly useless for beginners, there were lots of people having problems with Axis2 and the documentation was almost unbearable. Now if you are already an expert then none of this applies to you. But the idea that from flash that you can just call your server side code just by declaring the classes you are working with in a configuration file is magic. It is so easy. Of course the typing issues on web services sound like a bear too and there are none with remoting, but I cant really talk about that because I never got that far with web services.
FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only problem with FDS is pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or it was free if you used an open source solution. Now it costs $20,000 per server after you need more than one server. I may actually have to switch back to an AMF0 version of remoting by the time my first server is overwhelmed because $20k is insane. I am using amazon S3 and for 20k worth of bandwidth and storage I could support millions of users over a year. but 20k in FDS software probably only supports 100k users. So the economics of FDS are insane. They are probably driven by the desire not to screw the Flex
1.5 people who paid a lot of money for their servers. Nevertheless, for remoting only apps FDS pricing is the only reason not to use it. But technically if you dont have to learn web services FDS will save you a lot of time.
Regards,HankOn 8/23/06, Ted Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

AMF is faster in 3 fundamental ways:

Bandwidth Size –
Smaller, lighter, faster!!!

Parsing Speed – Less work
on both client and server!!!

Developer Productivity –
Less work for developers!!!

Web Services are dependent on XML Parsing on both the
client and server side. Although it's a good story, XML parsers are not
very efficient as parsing documents is an interpreted process. The Flash Player
XML parser will always be dramatically slower than AMF parsing, binary formats
are notoriously faster in this regard.

XML parsing additionally decays rapidly as the file size
increases. Flash Player XML parsing time increase non-linearly with larger XML
documents. With AMF parsing times are linear with data size. The XML decay can
be attributed to the number of inner objects that need to be created during a
parsing run. AMF objects are 1:1 with the data received where XML data is 1:N
per Elements/Attribute.

Comparing XML to AMF is an unfair race, AMF wins every
time. When you add in the overhead of WS SOAP parsing atop the base XML parser speed
you begin to see performance issues. With SOAP, you interpret an XML document
back into typed objects depending on the SOAP specifics used. Sure 350ms is ok
once or twice, but try doing 200 transactions in this format and you will see
performance issues arise. Using Web Services you are forcing the Flash Player
to do allot of unneeded work. The goal is to build richer applications, not
burn up player performance in crud operations.

Additionally non-proxied Web Service use suffers with
Flash Player because of the browser variation in the plug-in APIS. You cannot
get the 500 Errors response content in IE and thus the SOAP fault standard breaks
down. In SOAP there are important messages that arrive with 500 Errors and the
inability of the Flash Player to receive these is a problem. Unfortunately
there is no seamless way to get 500 Errors into the Flash Player other then
rewriting an HTTP Client in the Socket class. This effort would also require a
new SOAP library within Flex and socket use on low ports requires a more
complex crossdomain.xml configuration. Even then you still suffer the same
performance issues.

Performance aside, the productivity discussion is much
more important. AMF3 and Flex Data Services are wildly productive. Once you
compile your Java Class and configure a destination in FDS (1 XML Element), you
are done. All typing is handled, All methods are ready to run with any number
of client applications. It is the easiest way to create a server side API that
I know of. Actually most cases, implementing FDS will removes $20,000 of
developer time wasted on implementing other data exchange for an application.
FDS value is easy to see when viewed through this productivity ROI metric. If
you add CF integration into FDS, you enjoy an even more productive jump. We
spend so much time talking about performance but we often waste so much developer
time doing mundane data

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Claus Wahlers


 No I am not exaggerating.
 Run a Web Services call on my mothers old Dell and you can count the 
 seconds. When AMF was first added to Flash Player 6, the primary reason 
 was performance on slow machines. AMF was much faster then and it 
 remains the case. XML parsing performance decays non-linearly on slower 
 machines and with larger xml documents.

I fully understand that AMF is faster than XML. I also understand that 
FDS offers us way more than just AMF. I also understand that FDS in 
general, and AMF in particular makes things much easier for developers. 
I just don't want to accept that XML is as slow as you make it appear to 
be ;)

 Keep me honest Claus!

I try ;)

Cheers,
Claus.



--
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/

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides













Claus,



The specific case here is using
WebServices which is additive to using just XML.



Ted











From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Claus Wahlers
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
11:33 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides












 No I am not exaggerating.
 Run a Web Services call on my mothers old Dell and you can count the 
 seconds. When AMF was first added to Flash Player 6, the primary reason 
 was performance on slow machines. AMF was much faster then and it 
 remains the case. XML parsing performance decays non-linearly on slower 
 machines and with larger xml documents.

I fully understand that AMF is faster than XML. I also understand that 
FDS offers us way more than just AMF. I also understand that FDS in 
general, and AMF in particular makes things much easier for developers. 
I just don't want to accept that XML is as slow as you make it appear to 
be ;)

 Keep me honest Claus!

I try ;)

Cheers,
Claus.






__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides













FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE



- FDS Express is limited to one 1 physical CPU (multi-core
supported)

- FDS Express cannot be clustered for failover and redundancy.




All higher level FDS Licenses address the redundancy and
failover aspects for departmental use (100 concurrent users) and enterprise (unlimited
users).



The blanket statement that FDS costs $20,000 is dead
wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, free, free.



Ted Patrick

Flex Evangelist

Adobe Systems Incorporated

















From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank williams
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
11:19 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides











I have to agree with Ted regarding productivity.

Of course I may just be revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you,
but when I was considering various means of connecting to my java server during
the transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services. 

Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had dedicated the
time to it I could have gotten up and running. But, honestly, I gave up after
several days of study.

The Axis umailing list was fairly useless for beginners, there were lots of
people having problems with Axis2 and the documentation was almost unbearable.
Now if you are already an expert then none of this applies to you. But the idea
that from flash that you can just call your server side code just by declaring
the classes you are working with in a configuration file is magic. It is so
easy. Of course the typing issues on web services sound like a bear too and
there are none with remoting, but I cant really talk about that because I never
got that far with web services. 

FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only problem with FDS is
pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or it was free if you
used an open source solution. Now it costs $20,000 per server after you need
more than one server. I may actually have to switch back to an AMF0 version of
remoting by the time my first server is overwhelmed because $20k is insane. I
am using amazon S3 and for 20k worth of bandwidth and storage I could support
millions of users over a year. but 20k in FDS software probably only supports
100k users. So the economics of FDS are insane. They are probably driven by the
desire not to screw the Flex 1.5 people who paid a lot of money for their
servers. Nevertheless, for remoting only apps FDS pricing is the only reason
not to use it. But technically if you dont have to learn web services FDS will
save you a lot of time. 

Regards,
Hank



On 8/23/06, Ted Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]com wrote:







AMF
is faster in 3 fundamental ways:




 Bandwidth Size  Smaller, lighter,
 faster!!!





 Parsing Speed  Less work on both client
 and server!!!





 Developer Productivity  Less work for
 developers!!!




Web
Services are dependent on XML Parsing on both the client and server side.
Although it's a good story, XML parsers are not very efficient as parsing
documents is an interpreted process. The Flash Player XML parser will always be
dramatically slower than AMF parsing, binary formats are notoriously faster in
this regard. 



XML
parsing additionally decays rapidly as the file size increases. Flash Player
XML parsing time increase non-linearly with larger XML documents. With AMF
parsing times are linear with data size. The XML decay can be attributed to the
number of inner objects that need to be created during a parsing run. AMF
objects are 1:1 with the data received where XML data is 1:N per
Elements/Attribute.



Comparing
XML to AMF is an unfair race, AMF wins every time. When you add in the overhead
of WS SOAP parsing atop the base XML parser speed you begin to see performance
issues. With SOAP, you interpret an XML document back into typed objects
depending on the SOAP specifics used. Sure 350ms is ok once or twice, but try
doing 200 transactions in this format and you will see performance issues
arise. Using Web Services you are forcing the Flash Player to do allot of
unneeded work. The goal is to build richer applications, not burn up player
performance in crud operations.



Additionally
non-proxied Web Service use suffers with Flash Player because of the browser
variation in the plug-in APIS. You cannot get the 500 Errors response content
in IE and thus the SOAP fault standard breaks down. In SOAP there are important
messages that arrive with 500 Errors

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Ted:

How many concurrent users can FDS 
Expresssupport?

On the departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user 
tries to connect is there an
error message or busy message or do they just wait a little 
longer to get the data?

Thanks,

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted 
PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE

- FDS Express is limited to one 1 
physical CPU (multi-core supported)
- FDS Express cannot be clustered 
for failover and redundancy. 

All higher level FDS Licenses 
address the redundancy and failover aspects for departmental use (100 concurrent 
users) and enterprise (unlimited users).

The blanket statement that FDS 
costs $20,000 is dead wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, free, 
free.

Ted 
Patrick
Flex 
Evangelist
Adobe Systems 
Incorporated








From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of hank williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:19 
AMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
provides




I have to 
agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be revealing 
that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was considering various 
means of connecting to my java server during the transition to Flex2, I explored 
Axis and Axis2 for web services. Figuring out how to use them was *no 
joke*. I am sure if I had dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and 
running. But, honestly, I gave up after several days of study.The Axis 
umailing list was fairly useless for beginners, there were lots of people having 
problems with Axis2 and the documentation was almost unbearable. Now if you are 
already an expert then none of this applies to you. But the idea that from flash 
that you can just call your server side code just by declaring the classes you 
are working with in a configuration file is magic. It is so easy. Of course the 
typing issues on web services sound like a bear too and there are none with 
remoting, but I cant really talk about that because I never got that far with 
web services. FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only 
problem with FDS is pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or it 
was free if you used an open source solution. Now it costs $20,000 per server 
after you need more than one server. I may actually have to switch back to an 
AMF0 version of remoting by the time my first server is overwhelmed because $20k 
is insane. I am using amazon S3 and for 20k worth of bandwidth and storage I 
could support millions of users over a year. but 20k in FDS software probably 
only supports 100k users. So the economics of FDS are insane. They are probably 
driven by the desire not to screw the Flex 1.5 people who paid a lot of money 
for their servers. Nevertheless, for remoting only apps FDS pricing is the only 
reason not to use it. But technically if you dont have to learn web services FDS 
will save you a lot of time. Regards,Hank

On 8/23/06, Ted Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]com 
wrote:



AMF is faster in 3 fundamental 
ways:


  Bandwidth Size  Smaller, 
  lighter, faster!!! 


  Parsing Speed  Less work on 
  both client and server!!! 


  Developer Productivity  Less 
  work for developers!!! 

Web Services are dependent on XML 
Parsing on both the client and server side. Although it's a good story, XML 
parsers are not very efficient as parsing documents is an interpreted process. 
The Flash Player XML parser will always be dramatically slower than AMF parsing, 
binary formats are notoriously faster in this regard. 

XML parsing additionally decays 
rapidly as the file size increases. Flash Player XML parsing time increase 
non-linearly with larger XML documents. With AMF parsing times are linear with 
data size. The XML decay can be attributed to the number of inner objects that 
need to be created during a parsing run. AMF objects are 1:1 with the data 
received where XML data is 1:N per Elements/Attribute.

Comparing XML to AMF is an unfair 
race, AMF wins every time. When you add in the overhead of WS SOAP parsing atop 
the base XML parser speed you begin to see performance issues. With SOAP, you 
interpret an XML document back into typed objects depending on the SOAP 
specifics used. Sure 350ms is ok once or twice, but try doing 200 transactions 
in this format and you will see performance

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




FDS NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER
FDS 
NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVERFDS NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER
FDS 
NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVERFDS NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER

FDS 

NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER
FDS 
NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER

FDS 

NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVERFDS NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER

FDS 

NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER
FDS 
NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVER

FDS 

NOT FREE AFTER THE FIRST SERVERlol.But seriously Ted, you didnt read my post very carefully. What I said was this:Now it costs $20,000 per server after you need more than one server.
This is significant because it means that you are locked in and if you do well, at some point you will have to pay the piper significantly in order to scale. That second server cliff is a doosey!Regards,Hank
On 8/24/06, Ted Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



















FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE

FDS Express == 1CPU FREE



- FDS Express is limited to one 1 physical CPU (multi-core
supported)

- FDS Express cannot be clustered for failover and redundancy.




All higher level FDS Licenses address the redundancy and
failover aspects for departmental use (100 concurrent users) and enterprise (unlimited
users).



The blanket statement that FDS costs $20,000 is dead
wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, free, free.



Ted Patrick

Flex Evangelist

Adobe Systems Incorporated

















From: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] 
On Behalf Of hank williams
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006
11:19 AM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW]
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides











I have to agree with Ted regarding productivity.

Of course I may just be revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you,
but when I was considering various means of connecting to my java server during
the transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services. 

Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had dedicated the
time to it I could have gotten up and running. But, honestly, I gave up after
several days of study.

The Axis umailing list was fairly useless for beginners, there were lots of
people having problems with Axis2 and the documentation was almost unbearable.
Now if you are already an expert then none of this applies to you. But the idea
that from flash that you can just call your server side code just by declaring
the classes you are working with in a configuration file is magic. It is so
easy. Of course the typing issues on web services sound like a bear too and
there are none with remoting, but I cant really talk about that because I never
got that far with web services. 

FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only problem with FDS is
pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or it was free if you
used an open source solution. Now it costs $20,000 per server after you need
more than one server. I may actually have to switch back to an AMF0 version of
remoting by the time my first server is overwhelmed because $20k is insane. I
am using amazon S3 and for 20k worth of bandwidth and storage I could support
millions of users over a year. but 20k in FDS software probably only supports
100k users. So the economics of FDS are insane. They are probably driven by the
desire not to screw the Flex 1.5 people who paid a lot of money for their
servers. Nevertheless, for remoting only apps FDS pricing is the only reason
not to use it. But technically if you dont have to learn web services FDS will
save you a lot of time. 

Regards,
Hank



On 8/23/06, Ted Patrick 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







AMF
is faster in 3 fundamental ways:




 Bandwidth Size – Smaller, lighter,
 faster!!!





 Parsing Speed – Less work on both client
 and server!!!





 Developer Productivity – Less work for
 developers!!!




Web
Services are dependent on XML Parsing on both the client and server side.
Although it's a good story, XML parsers are not very efficient as parsing
documents is an interpreted process. The Flash Player XML parser will always be
dramatically slower than AMF parsing, binary formats are notoriously faster in
this regard. 



XML
parsing additionally decays rapidly as the file size increases. Flash Player
XML parsing time increase non-linearly with larger XML documents. With AMF
parsing times are linear with data size. The XML decay can be attributed to the
number of inner objects that need to be created during a parsing run. AMF
objects are 1:1 with the data received where XML data is 1:N per
Elements/Attribute

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can support but how many users your entire application can support per server. Because FDS is just a piece of your web application (WAR). So if you are doing something that is computationally intense or disk access intense it will suck up system resources more than otherwise, thus reducing the number of concurrent users your FDS app can support. So you really need to test your app to see how many concurrent users your apps, without FDS, will support. Adding FDS to that will obviously consume resources as well. 
What this means is FDS is more expensive when attached to a more heavy application.Regards,HankOn 8/24/06, Jack Caldwell
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







Ted:

How many concurrent users can FDS 
Expresssupport?

On the departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user 
tries to connect is there an
error message or busy message or do they just wait a little 
longer to get the data?

Thanks,

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted 
PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE

- FDS Express is limited to one 1 
physical CPU (multi-core supported)
- FDS Express cannot be clustered 
for failover and redundancy. 

All higher level FDS Licenses 
address the redundancy and failover aspects for departmental use (100 concurrent 
users) and enterprise (unlimited users).

The blanket statement that FDS 
costs $20,000 is dead wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, free, 
free.

Ted 
Patrick
Flex 
Evangelist
Adobe Systems 
Incorporated








From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of 
hank williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:19 
AMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
provides




I have to 
agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be revealing 
that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was considering various 
means of connecting to my java server during the transition to Flex2, I explored 
Axis and Axis2 for web services. Figuring out how to use them was *no 
joke*. I am sure if I had dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and 
running. But, honestly, I gave up after several days of study.The Axis 
umailing list was fairly useless for beginners, there were lots of people having 
problems with Axis2 and the documentation was almost unbearable. Now if you are 
already an expert then none of this applies to you. But the idea that from flash 
that you can just call your server side code just by declaring the classes you 
are working with in a configuration file is magic. It is so easy. Of course the 
typing issues on web services sound like a bear too and there are none with 
remoting, but I cant really talk about that because I never got that far with 
web services. FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only 
problem with FDS is pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or it 
was free if you used an open source solution. Now it costs $20,000 per server 
after you need more than one server. I may actually have to switch back to an 
AMF0 version of remoting by the time my first server is overwhelmed because $20k 
is insane. I am using amazon S3 and for 20k worth of bandwidth and storage I 
could support millions of users over a year. but 20k in FDS software probably 
only supports 100k users. So the economics of FDS are insane. They are probably 
driven by the desire not to screw the Flex 1.5 people who paid a lot of money 
for their servers. Nevertheless, for remoting only apps FDS pricing is the only 
reason not to use it. But technically if you dont have to learn web services FDS 
will save you a lot of time. Regards,Hank

On 8/23/06, Ted Patrick 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:



AMF is faster in 3 fundamental 
ways:


  Bandwidth Size – Smaller, 
  lighter, faster!!! 


  Parsing Speed – Less work on 
  both client and server!!! 


  Developer Productivity – Less 
  work for developers!!! 

Web Services are dependent on XML 
Parsing on both the client and server side. Although it's a good story, XML 
parsers are not very efficient as parsing documents is an interpreted process. 
The Flash Player XML parser will always be dramatically slower than AMF parsing, 
binary formats are notoriously

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Dustin Mercer













Something I have done in
the past is to create a hybrid solution. One of the biggest advantages of
Web Services is of course its ability to be consumed by just about everything.
That being said, Java can consume web services! I have found creating Web
Service Facades that FDS connects to can keep both sides happy. You get
the performance of AMF to the client side, and you get to keep your services in
one central location (as long as you dont try to recreate business logic
in java, just make it the middle man). One definite downfall is your J2EE
server will do the parsing and translation of the web services (this can impact
all users as the system scales if the server isnt very powerful, or the services
are poorly designed), as well as the consumption of services in java isnt
always the easiest thing. On the flip side of that your java server can
also do the exception handling and send better exceptions to the client side.
This may be a good middle ground for those searching for the benefits of both.



Dustin Mercer




__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Web site design development
  
  
Computer software development
  
  
Software design and development
  
  


Macromedia flex
  
  
Software development best practice
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Evert | Collab

You are forgetting that if a request takes half the time to complete, it 
needs less cpu time and you can double the concurrent requests per server.

Evert

Dave Wolf wrote:
 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.


   



--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

I am not clear how what you are talking about relates to the problems
that ted described.

Regards
Hank

On 8/24/06, ryanm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I am sure there are many smart people out there who will
  get WebServices to work well for them with Flex. It is a
  lot of hard work to make this work well and I  have only
  seen one company do it really well. I do not doubt that
  others will make this work reliably but I question its use.
  It will affect performance which is why AMF was created
  in the first place as an optimized data exchange format for
  Flash Player.
 
 I got around this problem by abstraction and preemptively loading data
 that was likely to be loaded. I made up template-like objects that the
 client loaded that describe what makes a page of data, which included all
 of the possible design elements and whatnot. That way, when you actually go
 to load the data, the size of the data going to and from the server was
 minimal (and compressed). And I preloaded large blocks of commonly used data
 and cached them on the client side, keeping it updated by sending an MD5
 hash back to the server-side to be compared to the current data set on a
 regular basis or whenever that data was accessed. For a dial-up user that
 might be a problem, but for a business app it didn't even cause a noticable
 bump in their bandwidth usage. You just have to plan appropriately and do
 thorough use cases, so that you can develop a set of rules that will tell
 you what data is likely to be needed next. All the most common usage paths
 through the app were fast and responsive, and only the really heavy stuff,
 like real time reports that go back over tons of db records and stuff, took
 any noticable time to load. The end result was 100% compatible with either
 an AJAX front end or a Flash front end, the back end didn't know or care
 which it was talking to.

 With appropriate planning and a good architecture, which transport
 method you use is almost irrelevant as long as it is flexible and
 compatible. ;-)

 ryanm



 --
 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/

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

Several of these posts now have seemed to indicate environments where the
Flex developer has the capability to manipulate the server side to their
liking.  Yes, you can squeeze a lot of performance out of any transport
method if you can manipulate it as you see fit.  I wonder if that scenario
is typical.

In my case, every modification to the web services must be done with extreme
care, as we have partners who also consume those services.  It doesn't make
sense to optimize the services just for Flex, as it is only a small part of
our total picture.


-Original Message-
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ryanm
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:05 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems
- which provides

 I am sure there are many smart people out there who will
 get WebServices to work well for them with Flex. It is a
 lot of hard work to make this work well and I  have only
 seen one company do it really well. I do not doubt that
 others will make this work reliably but I question its use.
 It will affect performance which is why AMF was created
 in the first place as an optimized data exchange format for
 Flash Player.

I got around this problem by abstraction and preemptively loading data 
that was likely to be loaded. I made up template-like objects that the 
client loaded that describe what makes a page of data, which included all 
of the possible design elements and whatnot. That way, when you actually go 
to load the data, the size of the data going to and from the server was 
minimal (and compressed). And I preloaded large blocks of commonly used data

and cached them on the client side, keeping it updated by sending an MD5 
hash back to the server-side to be compared to the current data set on a 
regular basis or whenever that data was accessed. For a dial-up user that 
might be a problem, but for a business app it didn't even cause a noticable 
bump in their bandwidth usage. You just have to plan appropriately and do 
thorough use cases, so that you can develop a set of rules that will tell 
you what data is likely to be needed next. All the most common usage paths 
through the app were fast and responsive, and only the really heavy stuff, 
like real time reports that go back over tons of db records and stuff, took 
any noticable time to load. The end result was 100% compatible with either 
an AJAX front end or a Flash front end, the back end didn't know or care 
which it was talking to.

With appropriate planning and a good architecture, which transport 
method you use is almost irrelevant as long as it is flexible and 
compatible. ;-)

ryanm 



--
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/

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Ted:

Thanks, 

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of adobetedSent: 
Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:26 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] 
Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


FDS Express - FREE- unlimited users with no clustering- 1 CPU ( 
multi-core supported )The number of users on FDS Express is tied to the 
scalability of theserver. Most machines fail in supporting a high number of 
concurrentusers at the host operating system. Some OS's are more scalable 
thanothers.FDS Express is wide open to allow developers to build 
great things ona single CPU (multi-core supported). The problem is that once 
yourservice becomes valuable and mission critical you need to 
supportredundancy in terms of failover and clustering. This is the point 
atwhich a commercial FDS license makes sense. Do you want to build 
business critical apps on a single point of failure? The commercial 
licenses of FDS provide J2EE scalability and clusteringsupport. It allows 
large companies to build much larger more scalablesolutions as 
follows:FDS Express - FREE- unlimited users with no clustering- 
1 CPU (multi-core supported)FDS Departmental - $6K per CPU- 100 
concurrent users across cluster- multiple CPU support- clustering 
supportFDS Enterprise - $20K per CPU- unlimited users across 
cluster- multiple CPU support- clustering supportAt the same 
time the FDS Express license allows developers to creategreat applications 
that leverage a single server. When your serviceneeds mission critical 
scalability and performance, there are licensesto support those 
needs.Jack, the bits between FDS versions are identical. A 
commerciallicense turns on clustering support and there are no errors in 
yourapplication on the 101st user.Hope that helps clear some FUD on 
FDS.Ted PatrickFlex EvangelistAdobe Systems 
Incorporated Ted:  How many concurrent users can FDS 
Express support?  On the departmental version, if the 101st 
concurrent user tries toconnect is there an error message or 
busy message or do they just wait a little longerto get the 
data?  Thanks,  Jack
__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Hank:

Not a problem.

I agree overall the web app has a 
bearing.

However, I just wanted to know how many concurrent users 
FDS Express
would allow.

Also, with the developmental version what happens when 
concurrent user
number 101 comes knocking on the door.

Thanks,

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have 
to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can support but how 
many users your entire application can support per server. Because FDS is just a 
piece of your web application (WAR). So if you are doing something that is 
computationally intense or disk access intense it will suck up system resources 
more than otherwise, thus reducing the number of concurrent users your FDS app 
can support. So you really need to test your app to see how many concurrent 
users your apps, without FDS, will support. Adding FDS to that will obviously 
consume resources as well. What this means is FDS is more expensive when 
attached to a more "heavy" application.Regards,Hank
On 8/24/06, Jack 
Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]com 
wrote:

  
  
  Ted:
  
  How many 
  concurrent users can FDS Expresssupport?
  
  On the 
  departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user tries to connect is there 
  an
  error 
  message or busy message or do they just wait a little longer to get the 
  data?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Jack
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of Ted 
  PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: RE: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  
  - FDS Express is limited to one 
  1 physical CPU (multi-core supported)
  - FDS Express cannot be 
  clustered for failover and redundancy. 
  
  All higher level FDS Licenses 
  address the redundancy and failover aspects for departmental use (100 
  concurrent users) and enterprise (unlimited users).
  
  The blanket statement that FDS 
  costs $20,000 is dead wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, 
  free, free.
  
  Ted Patrick
  Flex 
Evangelist
  Adobe Systems 
  Incorporated
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of hank williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:19 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
  [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  I have to 
  agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be 
  revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was 
  considering various means of connecting to my java server during the 
  transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services. 
  Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had 
  dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and running. But, honestly, I 
  gave up after several days of study.The Axis umailing list was fairly 
  useless for beginners, there were lots of people having problems with Axis2 
  and the documentation was almost unbearable. Now if you are already an expert 
  then none of this applies to you. But the idea that from flash that you can 
  just call your server side code just by declaring the classes you are working 
  with in a configuration file is magic. It is so easy. Of course the typing 
  issues on web services sound like a bear too and there are none with remoting, 
  but I cant really talk about that because I never got that far with web 
  services. FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only 
  problem with FDS is pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or 
  it was free if you used an open source solution. Now it costs $20,000 per 
  server after you need more than one server. I may actually have to switch back 
  to an AMF0 version of remoting by the time my first server is overwhelmed 
  because $20k is insane. I am using amazon S3 and for 20k worth of bandwidth 
  and storage I could support millions of users over a year. but 20k in FDS 
  software probably only supports 100k users. So the economics of FDS are 
  insane. They are probably driven by the desire not to screw the Flex 1.5 
  people who paid a lo

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Ted:

Just for my clarification. Probably a dumb question . 
. . .

On a departmental version, if I have 2 single CPU 
servers(clustered) I would need
2 licenses at $6K per CPU.

Does that get me 200 concurrent users?

Thanks,

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of adobetedSent: 
Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:26 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] 
Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


FDS Express - FREE- unlimited users with no clustering- 1 CPU ( 
multi-core supported )The number of users on FDS Express is tied to the 
scalability of theserver. Most machines fail in supporting a high number of 
concurrentusers at the host operating system. Some OS's are more scalable 
thanothers.FDS Express is wide open to allow developers to build 
great things ona single CPU (multi-core supported). The problem is that once 
yourservice becomes valuable and mission critical you need to 
supportredundancy in terms of failover and clustering. This is the point 
atwhich a commercial FDS license makes sense. Do you want to build 
business critical apps on a single point of failure? The commercial 
licenses of FDS provide J2EE scalability and clusteringsupport. It allows 
large companies to build much larger more scalablesolutions as 
follows:FDS Express - FREE- unlimited users with no clustering- 
1 CPU (multi-core supported)FDS Departmental - $6K per CPU- 100 
concurrent users across cluster- multiple CPU support- clustering 
supportFDS Enterprise - $20K per CPU- unlimited users across 
cluster- multiple CPU support- clustering supportAt the same 
time the FDS Express license allows developers to creategreat applications 
that leverage a single server. When your serviceneeds mission critical 
scalability and performance, there are licensesto support those 
needs.Jack, the bits between FDS versions are identical. A 
commerciallicense turns on clustering support and there are no errors in 
yourapplication on the 101st user.Hope that helps clear some FUD on 
FDS.Ted PatrickFlex EvangelistAdobe Systems 
Incorporated Ted:  How many concurrent users can FDS 
Express support?  On the departmental version, if the 101st 
concurrent user tries toconnect is there an error message or 
busy message or do they just wait a little longerto get the 
data?  Thanks,  Jack
__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




Oh, Sorry Jack, I didnt understand that you were asking a licensing question.Regards,HankOn 8/24/06, Jack Caldwell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






Hank:

Not a problem.

I agree overall the web app has a 
bearing.

However, I just wanted to know how many concurrent users 
FDS Express
would allow.

Also, with the developmental version what happens when 
concurrent user
number 101 comes knocking on the door.

Thanks,

Jack


From: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have 
to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can support but how 
many users your entire application can support per server. Because FDS is just a 
piece of your web application (WAR). So if you are doing something that is 
computationally intense or disk access intense it will suck up system resources 
more than otherwise, thus reducing the number of concurrent users your FDS app 
can support. So you really need to test your app to see how many concurrent 
users your apps, without FDS, will support. Adding FDS to that will obviously 
consume resources as well. What this means is FDS is more expensive when 
attached to a more heavy application.Regards,Hank
On 8/24/06, Jack 
Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  
  Ted:
  
  How many 
  concurrent users can FDS Expresssupport?
  
  On the 
  departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user tries to connect is there 
  an
  error 
  message or busy message or do they just wait a little longer to get the 
  data?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Jack
  
  
  From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted 
  PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  
  - FDS Express is limited to one 
  1 physical CPU (multi-core supported)
  - FDS Express cannot be 
  clustered for failover and redundancy. 
  
  All higher level FDS Licenses 
  address the redundancy and failover aspects for departmental use (100 
  concurrent users) and enterprise (unlimited users).
  
  The blanket statement that FDS 
  costs $20,000 is dead wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, 
  free, free.
  
  Ted Patrick
  Flex 
Evangelist
  Adobe Systems 
  Incorporated
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ups.com] On Behalf Of hank williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:19 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
  [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  I have to 
  agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be 
  revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was 
  considering various means of connecting to my java server during the 
  transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services. 
  Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had 
  dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and running. But, honestly, I 
  gave up after several days of study.The Axis umailing list was fairly 
  useless for beginners, there were lots of people having problems with Axis2 
  and the documentation was almost unbearable. Now if you are already an expert 
  then none of this applies to you. But the idea that from flash that you can 
  just call your server side code just by declaring the classes you are working 
  with in a configuration file is magic. It is so easy. Of course the typing 
  issues on web services sound like a bear too and there are none with remoting, 
  but I cant really talk about that because I never got that far with web 
  services. FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only 
  problem with FDS is pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or 
  it was free if you used an open source solution. Now it costs $20,000 per 
  server after you need more than one server. I may actually have to switch back 
  to an AMF0 version of remoting by the time my first server is overwhelmed 
  because $20k is insane. I am using amazon S3 and for 20k worth of bandwidth 
  and storage I could support millions of users over a year. but 20k in FDS 
  software probably

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Michael Schmalle




Hey Hank,Using FDS also means that you have root access to the web server right? Seeing as this is Java, you would need permissions to install in root folders.So, even if you can use FDS Express, it is still restricted(not free in the sense of Flex SDK). Dedicated servers are not cheap.
Peace, MikeOn 8/24/06, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:













  



Oh, Sorry Jack, I didnt understand that you were asking a licensing question.Regards,HankOn 8/24/06, 
Jack Caldwell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






Hank:

Not a problem.

I agree overall the web app has a 
bearing.

However, I just wanted to know how many concurrent users 
FDS Express
would allow.

Also, with the developmental version what happens when 
concurrent user
number 101 comes knocking on the door.

Thanks,

Jack


From: 

flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have 
to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can support but how 
many users your entire application can support per server. Because FDS is just a 
piece of your web application (WAR). So if you are doing something that is 
computationally intense or disk access intense it will suck up system resources 
more than otherwise, thus reducing the number of concurrent users your FDS app 
can support. So you really need to test your app to see how many concurrent 
users your apps, without FDS, will support. Adding FDS to that will obviously 
consume resources as well. What this means is FDS is more expensive when 
attached to a more heavy application.Regards,Hank
On 8/24/06, Jack 
Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  
  Ted:
  
  How many 
  concurrent users can FDS Expresssupport?
  
  On the 
  departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user tries to connect is there 
  an
  error 
  message or busy message or do they just wait a little longer to get the 
  data?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Jack
  
  
  From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:

flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted 
  PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  
  - FDS Express is limited to one 
  1 physical CPU (multi-core supported)
  - FDS Express cannot be 
  clustered for failover and redundancy. 
  
  All higher level FDS Licenses 
  address the redundancy and failover aspects for departmental use (100 
  concurrent users) and enterprise (unlimited users).
  
  The blanket statement that FDS 
  costs $20,000 is dead wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, 
  free, free.
  
  Ted Patrick
  Flex 
Evangelist
  Adobe Systems 
  Incorporated
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

ups.com] On Behalf Of hank williams
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:19 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com

Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
  [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  I have to 
  agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be 
  revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was 
  considering various means of connecting to my java server during the 
  transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services. 
  Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had 
  dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and running. But, honestly, I 
  gave up after several days of study.The Axis umailing list was fairly 
  useless for beginners, there were lots of people having problems with Axis2 
  and the documentation was almost unbearable. Now if you are already an expert 
  then none of this applies to you. But the idea that from flash that you can 
  just call your server side code just by declaring the classes you are working 
  with in a configuration file is magic. It is so easy. Of course the typing 
  issues on web services sound like a bear too and there are none with remoting, 
  but I cant really talk about that because I never got that far with web 
  services. FDS and Flex2 are far far easier to work with. My only 
  problem with FDS is pricing. Remoting used to cost $1000 or so per server, or 
  it was free if you

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




Hey Michael,Actually, I think (though I am not sure about this) that it is no different from deploying any other J2EE application. I dont think you need root access. I know my main account doesnt have root access on the server that I deploy FDS on (note: that is for my own safety as I am not a linux guru and I want protection from myself). But FDS apps are the kind that really do beg for using dedicated servers. But honestly a dedicated server is a lot less money than $20,000 :).
Regards,HankOn 8/24/06, Michael Schmalle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Hey Hank,Using FDS also means that you have root access to the web server right? Seeing as this is Java, you would need permissions to install in root folders.So, even if you can use FDS Express, it is still restricted(not free in the sense of Flex SDK). Dedicated servers are not cheap.
Peace, MikeOn 8/24/06, hank williams 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:













  



Oh, Sorry Jack, I didnt understand that you were asking a licensing question.Regards,HankOn 8/24/06, 
Jack Caldwell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






Hank:

Not a problem.

I agree overall the web app has a 
bearing.

However, I just wanted to know how many concurrent users 
FDS Express
would allow.

Also, with the developmental version what happens when 
concurrent user
number 101 comes knocking on the door.

Thanks,

Jack


From: 


flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I have 
to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can support but how 
many users your entire application can support per server. Because FDS is just a 
piece of your web application (WAR). So if you are doing something that is 
computationally intense or disk access intense it will suck up system resources 
more than otherwise, thus reducing the number of concurrent users your FDS app 
can support. So you really need to test your app to see how many concurrent 
users your apps, without FDS, will support. Adding FDS to that will obviously 
consume resources as well. What this means is FDS is more expensive when 
attached to a more heavy application.Regards,Hank
On 8/24/06, Jack 
Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  
  Ted:
  
  How many 
  concurrent users can FDS Expresssupport?
  
  On the 
  departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user tries to connect is there 
  an
  error 
  message or busy message or do they just wait a little longer to get the 
  data?
  
  Thanks,
  
  Jack
  
  
  From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:


flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ted 
  PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com


Subject: RE: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  FDS Express == 1CPU 
  FREE
  
  - FDS Express is limited to one 
  1 physical CPU (multi-core supported)
  - FDS Express cannot be 
  clustered for failover and redundancy. 
  
  All higher level FDS Licenses 
  address the redundancy and failover aspects for departmental use (100 
  concurrent users) and enterprise (unlimited users).
  
  The blanket statement that FDS 
  costs $20,000 is dead wrong. For a large majority of projects it is free, 
  free, free.
  
  Ted Patrick
  Flex 
Evangelist
  Adobe Systems 
  Incorporated
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


ups.com] On Behalf Of hank williams
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:19 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com


Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
  [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  I have to 
  agree with Ted regarding productivity.Of course I may just be 
  revealing that I am not as smart as the rest of you, but when I was 
  considering various means of connecting to my java server during the 
  transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2 for web services. 
  Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had 
  dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and running. But, honestly, I 
  gave up after several days of study.The Axis umailing list was fairly 
  useless for beginners, there were lots of people having problems with Axis2 
  and the documentation was almost unbearable. Now if you are already an expert

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Not Neccesarily.
When you start talking dedicated server prices can get 
quite high.
Chassis, Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
up.

With FDS i think the alternative is how much will it cost 
your development team to produce the same result using another 
method.

My take, I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
Application.

Regards,

Bjorn Schultheiss
Senior Flash Developer
QDC Technologies



From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 10:04 AMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


Hey Michael,Actually, I think (though I am not sure about this) that 
it is no different from deploying any other J2EE application. I dont think you 
need root access. I know my main account doesnt have root access on the server 
that I deploy FDS on (note: that is for my own safety as I am not a linux guru 
and I want protection from myself). But FDS apps are the kind that really do beg 
for using dedicated servers. But honestly a dedicated server is a lot less money 
than $20,000 :). Regards,Hank
On 8/24/06, Michael 
Schmalle teoti.graphix@gmail.com 
wrote:

  
  Hey Hank,Using FDS also means that you have root access to the 
  web server right? Seeing as this is Java, you would need permissions to 
  install in root folders.So, even if you can use FDS Express, it is 
  still restricted(not free in the sense of Flex SDK). Dedicated servers are not 
  cheap. Peace, Mike
  
  On 8/24/06, hank 
  williams  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]com wrote:
  




Oh, Sorry Jack, I didnt understand that you were asking a licensing 
question.Regards,Hank

On 8/24/06, Jack Caldwell  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]com wrote:


  
  
  
  Hank:
  
  Not a 
  problem.
  
  I 
  agree overall the web app has a bearing.
  
  However, I just wanted to know how many concurrent users FDS 
  Express
  would 
  allow.
  
  Also, 
  with the developmental version what happens when concurrent 
  user
  number 
  101 comes knocking on the door.
  
  Thanks,
  
  Jack
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of 
  hank williams
  Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 
  PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com
  Subject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - 
  LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I 
  have to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can 
  support but how many users your entire application can support per server. 
  Because FDS is just a piece of your web application (WAR). So if you are 
  doing something that is computationally intense or disk access intense it 
  will suck up system resources more than otherwise, thus reducing the 
  number of concurrent users your FDS app can support. So you really need to 
  test your app to see how many concurrent users your apps, without FDS, 
  will support. Adding FDS to that will obviously consume resources as well. 
  What this means is FDS is more expensive when attached to a more 
  "heavy" application.Regards,Hank
  
  
  On 8/24/06, Jack Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]com wrote: 
  
  
  



Ted:

How 
many concurrent users can FDS Expresssupport?

On 
the departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user tries to connect 
is there an
error message or busy message or do they just wait a little 
longer to get the data?

Thanks,

Jack


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of Ted 
PatrickSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: RE: 
        [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
    provides







FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU 
FREE
FDS Express == 1CPU

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

On 8/24/06, Bjorn Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Not Neccesarily.
When you start talking dedicated server prices can get
quite high.
Chassis, Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going
up.Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* to spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte raid thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the costs of doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your technology implementation and the analysis just becomes silly.

With FDS i think the alternative is how much will it cost
your development team to produce the same result using another
method.

My take, I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our
Application.My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many applications. My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS features) to go from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for apps that need to scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, which only uses remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will probably switch remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective than the $40,000 (for two servers) that I will need to spend.
$40,000 as the entry price for a scalable solution is really too much for my blood. For many companies 40k is nothing. But that aint me.Regards,Hank

__._,_.___

--
Flexcoders Mailing List
FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Shannon Hicks






$20,000 for remoting and not other FDS 
features?

Last I checked, ColdFusion server was around $1300/server, 
unless you needed enterprise, which is $6000/server.

Shan


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:05 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk 
E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
provides



On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
Schultheiss bjorn.schultheiss@qdc.net.au 
wrote:

  
  
  Not 
  Neccesarily.
  When you 
  start talking dedicated server prices can get quite high.
  Chassis, 
  Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
  up.
Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is 
really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* to 
spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte raid 
thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the costs of 
doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your technology 
implementation and the analysis just becomes silly. 

  
  
  With FDS 
  i think the alternative is how much will it cost your development team to 
  produce the same result using another method.
  
  My take, 
  I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
  Application.
My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many applications. 
My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS features) to go 
from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for apps that need to 
scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, which only uses 
remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will probably switch 
remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective than the $40,000 (for 
two servers) that I will need to spend. $40,000 as the entry price for a 
scalable solution is really too much for my blood. For many companies 40k is 
nothing. But that aint me.Regards,Hank

  
  

--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 
8/23/2006
__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/2006

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Hank,

I might be off track a bit here but FDS is not the only 
Adobe Server option for use ofRemoting.
JRun 4.5 update has the new AMF3 update, as does coldfusion 
and then there will be the open source alternatives that will 
pop-up.
40k just for Remoting is ugly, but my guess is there are 
alternatives.
In terms of FDS it is the DataSync that really takes my 
fancy ;)

Regards,

Bjorn Schultheiss
Senior Flash Developer
QDC Technologies



From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 11:05 AMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides



On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
Schultheiss bjorn.schultheiss@qdc.net.au 
wrote:

  
  
  Not 
  Neccesarily.
  When you 
  start talking dedicated server prices can get quite high.
  Chassis, 
  Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
  up.
Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is 
really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* to 
spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte raid 
thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the costs of 
doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your technology 
implementation and the analysis just becomes silly. 

  
  
  With FDS 
  i think the alternative is how much will it cost your development team to 
  produce the same result using another method.
  
  My take, 
  I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
  Application.
My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many applications. 
My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS features) to go 
from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for apps that need to 
scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, which only uses 
remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will probably switch 
remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective than the $40,000 (for 
two servers) that I will need to spend. $40,000 as the entry price for a 
scalable solution is really too much for my blood. For many companies 40k is 
nothing. But that aint me.Regards,Hank

  
  

__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

I am not clear how what you are talking about relates to the problems
 that ted described.

The parsing speed of the transport layer need not be relevant to the 
snappiness and responsiveness of your application if you plan 
appropriately.

ryanm 



--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

 In my case, every modification to the web services must be done with 
 extreme
 care, as we have partners who also consume those services.  It doesn't 
 make
 sense to optimize the services just for Flex, as it is only a small part 
 of
 our total picture.

If you have no control over the transport layer, then ther's no question 
about which one to use, you're stuck with whatever you are currently using.

ryanm 



--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




On 8/24/06, Bjorn Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







Hank,

I might be off track a bit here but FDS is not the only 
Adobe Server option for use ofRemoting.
JRun 4.5 update has the new AMF3 update, as does coldfusion 
and then there will be the open source alternatives that will 
pop-up.This is interesting. I dont know much about jrun. I use tomcat and am a little scared about being locked into jrun, but if jrun has remoting built in then that might be a valid solution. I havent heard much about this. Can you tell me more?

40k just for Remoting is ugly, but my guess is there are 
alternatives.
In terms of FDS it is the DataSync that really takes my 
fancy ;)I agree that the 40k is worth it for the sync features. 
Regards,

Bjorn Schultheiss
Senior Flash Developer
QDC Technologies



From: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 11:05 AMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides



On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  
  Not 
  Neccesarily.
  When you 
  start talking dedicated server prices can get quite high.
  Chassis, 
  Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
  up.
Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is 
really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* to 
spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte raid 
thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the costs of 
doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your technology 
implementation and the analysis just becomes silly. 

  
  
  With FDS 
  i think the alternative is how much will it cost your development team to 
  produce the same result using another method.
  
  My take, 
  I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
  Application.
My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many applications. 
My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS features) to go 
from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for apps that need to 
scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, which only uses 
remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will probably switch 
remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective than the $40,000 (for 
two servers) that I will need to spend. $40,000 as the entry price for a 
scalable solution is really too much for my blood. For many companies 40k is 
nothing. But that aint me.Regards,Hank

  
  






__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




On 8/24/06, Shannon Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:









$20,000 for remoting and not other FDS 
features?

Last I checked, ColdFusion server was around $1300/server, 
unless you needed enterprise, which is $6000/server.Can you confirm that you can cluster with the non-enterprise version? Even still, you are right that 6k is less than 20k, but for me, 6k is still too expensive for remoting.
Hank
Shan


From: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:05 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk 
E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
provides



On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  
  Not 
  Neccesarily.
  When you 
  start talking dedicated server prices can get quite high.
  Chassis, 
  Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
  up.
Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is 
really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* to 
spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte raid 
thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the costs of 
doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your technology 
implementation and the analysis just becomes silly. 

  
  
  With FDS 
  i think the alternative is how much will it cost your development team to 
  produce the same result using another method.
  
  My take, 
  I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
  Application.
My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many applications. 
My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS features) to go 
from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for apps that need to 
scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, which only uses 
remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will probably switch 
remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective than the $40,000 (for 
two servers) that I will need to spend. $40,000 as the entry price for a 
scalable solution is really too much for my blood. For many companies 40k is 
nothing. But that aint me.Regards,Hank

  
  

--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 
8/23/2006




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 8/23/2006
 



__._,_.___





--
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



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

 Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server is
 really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* 
 to
 spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte
 raid thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* 
 the
 costs of doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your
 technology implementation and the analysis just becomes silly.

Well, the thing is, many companies lease the server along with the 
bandwidth from a co-lo host. So it's all one monthly or yearly payment that 
guarantees parts will be replaced if they fail, the server will be properly 
managed, backups are done, there will be enough bandwidth, etc; uptime is 
guaranteed. In that case, there are no one-time costs, it's all a recurring 
cost.

 and that when my app, which only
 uses remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will probably
 switch remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective than the
 $40,000 (for two servers) that I will need to spend.

Check out WebORB: $700 per license, no concurrent user limit. ;-)

ryanm 



--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

 On a departmental version, if I have 2 single CPU servers(clustered) I 
 would
 need 2 licenses at $6K per CPU.

 Does that get me 200 concurrent users?

Nope...

FDS Departmental - $6K per CPU
- 100 concurrent users across cluster
- multiple CPU support
- clustering support

That's what across cluster means, you only get 100 users no matter how 
many licenses you buy. Macrobe seems/seemed to be stuck on artificially 
limiting the number of concurrent users in order to sell more (or more 
expensive) servers.

Like Ted said: Most machines fail in supporting a high number of 
concurrent users at the host operating system. Some OS's are more scalable 
than others. Straight from the horse's mouth.

Most servers don't limit by concurrent users and allow the server to 
handle as many users as the server can handle, at which point you need to 
cluster servers to manage the load. Meanwhile, Adobe wants to limit by 
concurrent users *and* force you to buy more licenses for clustered servers. 
IOW, have their cake and eat it too.

Personally, I haven't been able to justify it to anyone yet, so I 
haven't been able to sell a single license for the new FDS or FMS servers, 
directly because of the licensing. Conpanies that have plenty of money to 
spend and an adversity to OS software have actually said to me Isn't there 
an open source one we can use that isn't so restrictive? They don't have 
any problem shelling out tens of thousands for a server, but are suprised by 
the ridiculous licensing scheme. I'm not losing any money, in fact I'm 
making more money in development hours on the projects because I have to 
come up with other solutions, but Adobe has certainly lost at least a 
million $ worth of business this year because my clients went either to web 
services (standardized) or to a 3rd party solution or some custom solution 
(optimized). And yes, I spent plenty of time working with my local Adobe 
rep, but she was unable to get any kind of sensible licensing scheme 
approved, even with the amounts of money we were talking about.

I just wonder if they realize how much money they are losing because of 
their licensing schemes.

ryanm 



--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

 Check out WebORB: $700 per license, no concurrent user limit. ;-)


Hey, do they do Java remoting with AMF3? I know they do it with .NET
and Now ROR, but I would be really interested in a Java product if
they have it.

Hank


--
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/

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread James Ward

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

You do not need root access unless you need to run on a privileged port
(ie. under 1024).  You can install your Java app server of choice with
FDS in any folder you want.

FDS Express is only restricted by it's license.  For instance the
license states that you can only run FDS Express on a single cpu
machine.  And that you can't redistribute FDS Express.

- -James


Michael Schmalle wrote:
 Hey Hank,

 Using FDS also means that you have root access to the web server right?
 Seeing as this is Java, you would need permissions to install in root
 folders.

 So, even if you can use FDS Express, it is still restricted(not free in the
 sense of Flex SDK). Dedicated servers are not cheap.

 Peace, Mike

 On 8/24/06, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Oh, Sorry Jack, I didnt understand that you were asking a licensing
 question.

 Regards,
 Hank

 On 8/24/06, Jack Caldwell  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   Hank:
 
  Not a problem.
 
  I agree overall the web app has a bearing.
 
  However, I just wanted to know how many concurrent users FDS Express
  would allow.
 
  Also, with the developmental version what happens when concurrent user
  number 101 comes knocking on the door.
 
  Thanks,
 
  Jack
 
   --
  *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
  Behalf Of *hank williams
  *Sent:* Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:31 PM
  *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
 
  *Subject:* Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
  systems - which provides
 
   Hate to jump in, because I see your question is targeted at ted, but I
  have to say one thing. The issue isnt how many users FDS Express can
 support
  but how many users your entire application can support per server.
 Because
  FDS is just a piece of your web application (WAR). So if you are doing
  something that is computationally intense or disk access intense it
 will
  suck up system resources more than otherwise, thus reducing the
 number of
  concurrent users your FDS app can support. So you really need to
 test your
  app to see how many concurrent users your apps, without FDS, will
 support.
  Adding FDS to that will obviously consume resources as well.
 
  What this means is FDS is more expensive when attached to a more
 heavy
  application.
 
  Regards,
  Hank
 
  On 8/24/06, Jack Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
Ted:
  
   How many concurrent users can FDS Express support?
  
   On the departmental version, if the 101st concurrent user tries to
   connect is there an
   error message or busy message or do they just wait a little longer to
   get the data?
  
   Thanks,
  
   Jack
  
--
   *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   *On Behalf Of *Ted Patrick
   *Sent:* Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 PM
   *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
   *Subject:* RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend
   systems - which provides
  
  FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   FDS Express == 1CPU FREE
  
   - FDS Express is limited to one 1 physical CPU (multi-core supported)
  
   - FDS Express cannot be clustered for failover and redundancy.
  
   All higher level FDS Licenses address the redundancy and failover
   aspects for departmental use (100 concurrent users) and enterprise
   (unlimited users).
  
   The blanket statement that FDS costs $20,000 is dead wrong. For a
   large majority of projects it is free, free, free.
  
   Ted Patrick
  
   Flex Evangelist
  
   Adobe Systems Incorporated
  
  --
  
   *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ups.com]
   *On Behalf Of *hank williams
  
   *Sent:* Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:19 AM
   *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
   * Subject:* Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of
 backend
   systems - which provides
  
 I have to agree with Ted regarding productivity.
  
   Of course I may just be revealing that I am not as smart as the rest
   of you, but when I was considering various means of connecting to
 my java
   server during the transition to Flex2, I explored Axis and Axis2
 for web
   services.
  
   Figuring out how to use them was *no joke*. I am sure if I had
   dedicated the time to it I could have gotten up and running. But,
 honestly,
   I gave up after several days of study.
  
   The Axis umailing list was fairly useless for beginners, there were
   lots of people having problems with Axis2 and the documentation

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






What are you using at the moment that's cheaper, 
PHP?

Regards,

Bjorn Schultheiss
Senior Flash Developer
QDC Technologies



From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 12:21 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk 
E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
provides



On 8/24/06, Shannon 
Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]com 
wrote:

  
  
  $20,000 
  for remoting and not other FDS features?
  
  Last I 
  checked, ColdFusion server was around $1300/server, unless you needed 
  enterprise, which is $6000/server.
Can you confirm that you can cluster with the non-enterprise 
version? Even still, you are right that 6k is less than 20k, but for me, 6k is 
still too expensive for remoting. Hank

  
  
  Shan
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
  williams
  Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:05 
  PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend 
  systems - which provides
  
  
  
  
  On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
  Schultheiss bjorn.schultheiss@qdc.net.au wrote: 
  

Not 
Neccesarily.
When 
you start talking dedicated server prices can get quite 
high.
Chassis, Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
up.
  Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server 
  is really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* 
  to spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte 
  raid thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the 
  costs of doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your 
  technology implementation and the analysis just becomes silly. 
  
  

With 
FDS i think the alternative is how much will it cost your development team 
to produce the same result using another method.

My 
take, I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
Application.
  My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many 
  applications. My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS 
  features) to go from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for 
  apps that need to scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, 
  which only uses remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will 
  probably switch remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective 
  than the $40,000 (for two servers) that I will need to spend. $40,000 
  as the entry price for a scalable solution is really too much for my blood. 
  For many companies 40k is nothing. But that aint 
  me.Regards,Hank
  

  
  
  
  
  --No virus found in this incoming 
  message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release 
  Date: 8/23/2006
  
  
  
  
  --No virus found in this outgoing 
  message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release 
  Date: 8/23/2006
  

__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Ryanm:

Thanks for the clarification. I was afraid of 
that.

I agree 1,000% regarding pricing.

It appears that Adobe has "Enterprise" on the brain. 
They seem
to think that is their target market.

Big mistake.

Other alternatives will emerge and Adobe will be sitting at 
a board 
meeting wondering what went wrong. Why is FDS not 
selling.

They are just not listening to their 
customers.

Again, thanks for the clarification.

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ryanmSent: 
Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:27 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


 On a departmental version, if I have 2 single CPU servers(clustered) I 
 would need 2 licenses at $6K per CPU. Does that 
get me 200 concurrent users?Nope...FDS Departmental - $6K 
per CPU- 100 concurrent users across cluster- multiple CPU support- 
clustering supportThat's what "across cluster" means, you only get 100 
users no matter how many licenses you buy. Macrobe seems/seemed to be stuck 
on artificially limiting the number of concurrent users in order to sell 
more (or more expensive) servers.Like Ted said: "Most machines fail 
in supporting a high number of concurrent users at the host operating 
system. Some OS's are more scalable than others." Straight from the horse's 
mouth.Most servers don't limit by concurrent users and allow the server 
to handle as many users as the server can handle, at which point you need to 
cluster servers to manage the load. Meanwhile, Adobe wants to limit by 
concurrent users *and* force you to buy more licenses for clustered servers. 
IOW, have their cake and eat it too.Personally, I haven't been able 
to justify it to anyone yet, so I haven't been able to sell a single license 
for the new FDS or FMS servers, directly because of the licensing. Conpanies 
that have plenty of money to spend and an adversity to OS software have 
actually said to me "Isn't there an open source one we can use that isn't so 
restrictive?" They don't have any problem shelling out tens of 
thousands for a server, but are suprised by the ridiculous licensing scheme. 
I'm not losing any money, in fact I'm making more money in development hours 
on the projects because I have to come up with other solutions, but Adobe 
has certainly lost at least a million $ worth of business this year because 
my clients went either to web services (standardized) or to a 3rd party 
solution or some custom solution (optimized). And yes, I spent plenty of 
time working with my local Adobe rep, but she was unable to get any kind of 
sensible licensing scheme approved, even with the amounts of money we were 
talking about.I just wonder if they realize how much money they are 
losing because of their licensing schemes.ryanm 
__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






http://www.adobe.com/products/jrun/
I must warn though, Jrun seems to be a forgotten child of 
adobe at the moment.
The recent private beta test was a bit, shall we say, 
lacking of support for issues.

4.5 has yet to be released but i can verify its got 
AMF3.

Regards,

Bjorn Schultheiss
Senior Flash Developer
QDC Technologies



From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 12:20 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides



On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
Schultheiss bjorn.schultheiss@qdc.net.au 
wrote:

  
  
  Hank,
  
  I might 
  be off track a bit here but FDS is not the only Adobe Server option for use 
  ofRemoting.
  JRun 4.5 
  update has the new AMF3 update, as does coldfusion and then there will be the 
  open source alternatives that will 
pop-up.
This is interesting. I dont know much about jrun. I use tomcat and 
am a little scared about being locked into jrun, but if jrun has remoting built 
in then that might be a valid solution. I havent heard much about this. Can you 
tell me more? 

  
  
  40k just 
  for Remoting is ugly, but my guess is there are 
  alternatives.
  In terms 
  of FDS it is the DataSync that really takes my fancy 
  ;)
I agree that the 40k is worth it for the sync features. 


  
  
  Regards,
  
  Bjorn Schultheiss
  Senior Flash Developer
  QDC Technologies
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
  williams
  Sent: Friday, 25 August 2006 11:05 
  AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: Re: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
  
  On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
  Schultheiss bjorn.schultheiss@qdc.net.au wrote: 
  

Not 
Neccesarily.
When 
you start talking dedicated server prices can get quite 
high.
Chassis, Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
up.
  Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server 
  is really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* 
  to spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte 
  raid thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the 
  costs of doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your 
  technology implementation and the analysis just becomes silly. 
  
  

With 
FDS i think the alternative is how much will it cost your development team 
to produce the same result using another method.

My 
take, I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
Application.
  My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many 
  applications. My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS 
  features) to go from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for 
  apps that need to scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, 
  which only uses remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will 
  probably switch remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective 
  than the $40,000 (for two servers) that I will need to spend. $40,000 
  as the entry price for a scalable solution is really too much for my blood. 
  For many companies 40k is nothing. But that aint 
  me.Regards,Hank
  

  
  
  
  

__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides




Cheaper than 6k? I am not sure I understand your question.I am saying that adobe's remoting tool used to be around $1,000. FDS is $20,000. You are right that $6,000 is far cheaper than $20,000, but 6k is too expensive when compared to their previous offering of $1,000. Currently I am using FDS Express, which is free, but when I need to scale the price will jump to $40k.
I am not sure how php fits into this. My code is in Java.RegardsHankOn 8/24/06, Bjorn Schultheiss 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






What are you using at the moment that's cheaper, 
PHP?

Regards,

Bjorn Schultheiss
Senior Flash Developer
QDC Technologies



From: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
williamsSent: Friday, 25 August 2006 12:21 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk 
E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
provides



On 8/24/06, Shannon 
Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  
  $20,000 
  for remoting and not other FDS features?
  
  Last I 
  checked, ColdFusion server was around $1300/server, unless you needed 
  enterprise, which is $6000/server.
Can you confirm that you can cluster with the non-enterprise 
version? Even still, you are right that 6k is less than 20k, but for me, 6k is 
still too expensive for remoting. Hank

  
  
  Shan
  
  
  
  From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hank 
  williams
  Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:05 
  PMTo: flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend 
  systems - which provides
  
  
  
  
  On 8/24/06, Bjorn 
  Schultheiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  

Not 
Neccesarily.
When 
you start talking dedicated server prices can get quite 
high.
Chassis, Power Supplies, Bandwidth man the costs keep going 
up.
  Hmm... bundling hosting/bandwidth costs into the cost of the server 
  is really a slippery slope. I was refering to one time costs. And its *hard* 
  to spend more than 5k on a 1 cpu server. Of course if you need a 20 terrabyte 
  raid thats another thing. But that would not be normal. Of course *all* the 
  costs of doing business could be applied as a form of burden on your 
  technology implementation and the analysis just becomes silly. 
  
  

With 
FDS i think the alternative is how much will it cost your development team 
to produce the same result using another method.

My 
take, I will be using FDS in our v2 development of our 
Application.
  My point is not that FDS is good and worth using for many 
  applications. My point is that for the cost of remoting (not all the other FDS 
  features) to go from $1000 (the old remoting price) to $20,000 per server for 
  apps that need to scale beyond one server is insane, and that when my app, 
  which only uses remoting, gets to the point where it needs to scale, I will 
  probably switch remoting technologies since it will be more cost effective 
  than the $40,000 (for two servers) that I will need to spend. $40,000 
  as the entry price for a scalable solution is really too much for my blood. 
  For many companies 40k is nothing. But that aint 
  me.Regards,Hank
  

  
  
  
  
  --No virus found in this incoming 
  message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release 
  Date: 8/23/2006
  
  
  
  
  --No virus found in this outgoing 
  message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release 
  Date: 8/23/2006
  






__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides

2006-08-24 Thread Douglas Knudsen




not listening? Flex 1.5 had like none of the price options Flex 2.0 has and no fancy IDE worth salt! DKOn 8/24/06, Jack Caldwell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:






Ryanm:

Thanks for the clarification. I was afraid of 
that.

I agree 1,000% regarding pricing.

It appears that Adobe has Enterprise on the brain. 
They seem
to think that is their target market.

Big mistake.

Other alternatives will emerge and Adobe will be sitting at 
a board 
meeting wondering what went wrong. Why is FDS not 
selling.

They are just not listening to their 
customers.

Again, thanks for the clarification.

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ryanmSent: 
Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:27 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


 On a departmental version, if I have 2 single CPU servers(clustered) I 
 would need 2 licenses at $6K per CPU. Does that 
get me 200 concurrent users?Nope...FDS Departmental - $6K 
per CPU- 100 concurrent users across cluster- multiple CPU support- 
clustering supportThat's what across cluster means, you only get 100 
users no matter how many licenses you buy. Macrobe seems/seemed to be stuck 
on artificially limiting the number of concurrent users in order to sell 
more (or more expensive) servers.Like Ted said: Most machines fail 
in supporting a high number of concurrent users at the host operating 
system. Some OS's are more scalable than others. Straight from the horse's 
mouth.Most servers don't limit by concurrent users and allow the server 
to handle as many users as the server can handle, at which point you need to 
cluster servers to manage the load. Meanwhile, Adobe wants to limit by 
concurrent users *and* force you to buy more licenses for clustered servers. 
IOW, have their cake and eat it too.Personally, I haven't been able 
to justify it to anyone yet, so I haven't been able to sell a single license 
for the new FDS or FMS servers, directly because of the licensing. Conpanies 
that have plenty of money to spend and an adversity to OS software have 
actually said to me Isn't there an open source one we can use that isn't so 
restrictive? They don't have any problem shelling out tens of 
thousands for a server, but are suprised by the ridiculous licensing scheme. 
I'm not losing any money, in fact I'm making more money in development hours 
on the projects because I have to come up with other solutions, but Adobe 
has certainly lost at least a million $ worth of business this year because 
my clients went either to web services (standardized) or to a 3rd party 
solution or some custom solution (optimized). And yes, I spent plenty of 
time working with my local Adobe rep, but she was unable to get any kind of 
sensible licensing scheme approved, even with the amounts of money we were 
talking about.I just wonder if they realize how much money they are 
losing because of their licensing schemes.ryanm 



-- Douglas Knudsenhttp://www.cubicleman.comthis is my signature, like it?

__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides






Doug:

While price options are nice, the server side when scaling 
is a necessity
is still over priced.

My .02 cents . . . .as opposed to$ 
20K.

Jack


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas 
KnudsenSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:27 PMTo: 
flexcoders@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] 
[flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides


not listening? Flex 1.5 had like none of the price options Flex 2.0 has 
and no fancy IDE worth salt! DK
On 8/24/06, Jack 
Caldwell  
[EMAIL PROTECTED]com wrote:

  
  
  Ryanm:
  
  Thanks for 
  the clarification. I was afraid of that.
  
  I agree 
  1,000% regarding pricing.
  
  It appears 
  that Adobe has "Enterprise" on the brain. They seem
  to think 
  that is their target market.
  
  Big 
  mistake.
  
  Other 
  alternatives will emerge and Adobe will be sitting at a board 
  
  meeting 
  wondering what went 
  wrong. Why is FDS not selling.
  
  They are 
  just not listening to their customers.
  
  Again, 
  thanks for the clarification.
  
  Jack
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.com] On Behalf Of 
  ryanmSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:27 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]ups.comSubject: Re: [Junk 
  E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which 
  provides
  
  
  
   On a departmental version, if I have 2 single CPU servers(clustered) I 
   would need 2 licenses at $6K per CPU. Does 
  that get me 200 concurrent users?Nope...FDS Departmental - 
  $6K per CPU- 100 concurrent users across cluster- multiple CPU 
  support- clustering supportThat's what "across cluster" means, you 
  only get 100 users no matter how many licenses you buy. Macrobe 
  seems/seemed to be stuck on artificially limiting the number of concurrent 
  users in order to sell more (or more expensive) servers.Like Ted 
  said: "Most machines fail in supporting a high number of concurrent users 
  at the host operating system. Some OS's are more scalable than others." 
  Straight from the horse's mouth.Most servers don't limit by concurrent 
  users and allow the server to handle as many users as the server can 
  handle, at which point you need to cluster servers to manage the load. 
  Meanwhile, Adobe wants to limit by concurrent users *and* force you to buy 
  more licenses for clustered servers. IOW, have their cake and eat it 
  too.Personally, I haven't been able to justify it to anyone yet, so I 
  haven't been able to sell a single license for the new FDS or FMS servers, 
  directly because of the licensing. Conpanies that have plenty of money to 
  spend and an adversity to OS software have actually said to me "Isn't 
  there an open source one we can use that isn't so restrictive?" They don't 
  have any problem shelling out tens of thousands for a server, but are 
  suprised by the ridiculous licensing scheme. I'm not losing any money, in 
  fact I'm making more money in development hours on the projects because I 
  have to come up with other solutions, but Adobe has certainly lost at 
  least a million $ worth of business this year because my clients went 
  either to web services (standardized) or to a 3rd party solution or some 
  custom solution (optimized). And yes, I spent plenty of time working with 
  my local Adobe rep, but she was unable to get any kind of sensible 
  licensing scheme approved, even with the amounts of money we were talking 
  about.I just wonder if they realize how much money they are losing 
  because of their licensing schemes.ryanm -- 
Douglas Knudsenhttp://www.cubicleman.comthis is 
my signature, like it? 

__._,_.___





--
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
  
  
  

Software development tool
  
  
Software development
  
  
Software development services
  
  


Home design software
  
  
Software development company
  

   
  







  
  
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



  Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  






__,_._,___

RE: [Junk E-Mail - LOW] [flexcoders] Re: Choice of backend systems - which provides