The plan is for Flex to officially support a runtime-localization strategy in the next major release. One team has managed to customize systemManager to allow an RSL of resource bundles to be brought in before the app starts up, and they choose which RSL based on locale, but that's because they couldn't wait for next major release and gamble that we don't pull that feature before we ship. Binding is slow because it is a really convenient but general feature. If you have a bunch of strings and know where they go, you should just write code to stuff them if you are concerned about performance. -Alex
________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul DeCoursey Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:27 AM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: How heavyweight is data binding? I'm going to jump in here and say that if you try binding a very large number of strings you are going to have a performance penalty. I think the only benefit to not using the built in localization and ResourceBundles is a user could switch locales dynamically within the app and not have to reload the app. I considered that a positive and looked at going that route. I found however that it did slow the app down when the user switched locales mid stream. In the end I went back to using the ResourceBundle and I am much happier. The most common use case is that a user would select the locale at login or startup and not change it. well actually the most common use case is the browser will tell us the users locale and we serve the correct swf file based on that and the user never has to select anything. In the end it's less code, less overhead from binding and gives us much more control over the appearance of a specific locale. Paul --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "One Person" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Collin, > > We are using a similar approach for our I18N strings. We don't have > nearly as many strings are you have indicated you are using, but we > are wondering the same thing. Will a large number of data bound > string cause problems in the app? > > We are trying to come up with a different plan if we find something > else we will share it. > > But what have you discovered since last year. It has been several > months since your last post and I was wondering if you had discovered > anything new. > > Thanks, > Mike Collins > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Collin Peters" <cpeters@> > wrote: > > > > Yes, I have considered and ruled out Flex 2's localization > features. I find > > it a ludicrous idea to have to compile resource strings directly > into a SWF > > or SWC. Maybe I am still missing something about how Flex > implements it and > > please tell me if I am. I find two serious issues with this method > > 1. You have to compile your application for EACH language you want > to > > support. So if I want to support 30 languages I have to compile my > > application 30 times, storing the output in different directories, > etc., > > etc.. Add to this that in order to support skinning I have to > again compile > > the application for each skin. So if I have 30 languages and I > want to give > > the option of 30 skins for each language that = 30 * 30 = 900 > compiled > > instances of the same application. Some may say why would have > that many > > skins. I say why not? This is EASILY accomplished with HTML. And > you > > can't ask me 'why support 30 languages'. Anybody who has done any > kind of > > enterprise development knows the answer to that question. > > 2. Related to #1 but still I don't understand why you would want to > compile > > the i18n strings *directly* into the SWF. This means any time I > want to > > make a single update to any string in any language I have to > recompile > > EVERYTHING. Wow, that is insanity. > > > > Now as for my solution it is really quite simple. It is simply a > singleton > > class that loads an XML file containing the text strings. The > loading of > > this file is part of my bootstrap process which also loads the > application > > configuration, inits remoting, etc.. The XML file looks like: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > > <language translation="en_US"> > > <key id="$I18N_PROGRAM">Program</key> > > <key id="$I18N_POINTS">Points</key> > > .... > > > > To get a I18N string you simple call Locale.getKey("$I18N_PROGRAM") > which > > does some other error checking but basically the only brains is: > > var value:String = _langXML.key.(@id == key); > > E4X makes this *incredibly* easy and even as I mentioned could even > allow > > you to change every piece of text in your entire running application > > instantly by simply loading another xml file. The original > question of this > > thread though is 'is having that many bindings feasible'. If it > isn't I > > don't really mind as all it means is telling the user to restart the > > application. Since users don't exactly switch languages often this > isn't an > > unreasonable thing to ask. The other argument is that since (I > assume) a > > SWF is compressed somewhat the download time for this may be more. > This is > > true but not by much. I have also added a feature to modularize > the strings > > so that each languge will be broken up into many files and they > will be only > > loaded as each module in the app is loaded (this is a multi-module, > > multi-swf app) > > > > If there are any better methods I would love to hear them. By all > means > > lets start a discussion on it. But I don't see a single advantage > to using > > Flex's built in methods. > > > > Regards, > > Collin Peters > > > > > > On 12/25/06, greg h <flexsavvy@> wrote: > > > > > > Collin, > > > > > > But a side question Collin, had you considered and ruled out Flex > 2's > > > localization > features<http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flex/2/docs/00000898.html <http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flex/2/docs/00000898.html> >whic > h are implemented at compile time, rather than using run time > bindings? > > > If so, and if you are willing to share, I am interested to hear > what your > > > considerations were. > > > > > > > > > > > g > > > > > > > > > On 12/24/06, Collin Peters <cpeters@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Merry Christmas all! > > > > > > > > I am wondering how heavyweight databinding is. What I have is > a class > > > > which handles all the I18N in my application. It is a simple > class > > > > which loads an XML containing all the I18N strings and then > provides a > > > > getKey() function to grab strings out. > > > > > > > > What I have discovered is that I can directly bind labels and > such in > > > > MXML directly to the XML i18n string. I am wondering though if > this > > > > is a smart idea. The completed app could have a thousand or > more i18n > > > > strings. Would it unnecessarily stress the application to have > each > > > > one of these thousand strings setup with data binding? > > > > > > > > I'm wondering about increased memory and CPU usage. Not much is > > > > gained from the binding except slightly less code and I guess > the > > > > possibility of changing all strings in the application to > another > > > > language by simply loading another XML file. But again, I > wonder how > > > > fast this would be. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Collin Peters > > > > Lead Software Developer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Collin Peters > > Lead Software Developer > > >
