On Thursday 18 Dec 2008, Fotis Chatzinikos wrote:
> Hi, I think I read somewhere that the framework will cache per domain. Ie
> if siteX uses the framework and it is cached it is only cached for siteX,
> not siteY...
That's not true, if you are talking about the signed Flex framework RSLs.
If some
:52 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF
file sizes are too big...
Ok, just to make it 100% clear if 3.2 is cached and mine is 3.0 you say that
3.0 will be downloaded even 3.2 is there?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Alex
ikos
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:47 PM
>
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets?
> SWF file sizes are too big...
>
>
>
> Thanks Alex, the following makes much sense!:
>
> >
rom: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Fotis Chatzinikos
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:47 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF
file sizes are too big...
Thanks Alex, the following m
ps.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Ralf Bokelberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets?
> SWF file sizes are too big...
>
>
>
> Flex is more interactive? This must be a misund
d...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Ralf Bokelberg
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF
file sizes are too big...
Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex
Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is
really more about enterprise development process, less about
technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your
500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably.
Ralf.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan wrote:
> It
It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like
saying 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need
Flex in our Flash app?' Unless you
Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly
released in June 2006. Although Flex is now
Hi, I think I read somewhere that the framework will cache per domain. Ie if
siteX uses the framework and it is cached it is only cached for siteX, not
siteY...
I am not sure if that is the case though, as i am using framework caching
but my application is not deployed yet and have not tested (plu
Tom, thank you for your feedback. yes Javascript is great, but
Myspace, one of the most popular sites that allows widgets doesn't
allow Javascript. This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
to have more interactive wid
On Thursday 18 Dec 2008, Manish Jethani wrote:
> AS3 (without Flex) isn't going to buy you much. If you call your app a
> "widget" though, I agree Flex is too much for that. The world needs a
> mini-Flex, a widget development language.
This is called JavaScript :-)
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to ev
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, devenhariyani wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps
> written completely in ActionScript 3? I did some quick searches on
> Google, but didn't find much.
This viewer app is done in pure ActionScript 3 using the Flash Player API
I think RSLs are the key to keeping file side down on your Flex apps.
The Flex framework is about 1.5 megs worth of code, and it only gets
bigger if youre doing charting, rpc, etc. A Flex app gets a tough hit
dragging all this supporting code into the app.
That said though, if you reference these
Josh McDonald wrote:
> I definitely agree with you Gabriel, you wouldn't catch me doing a
> non-Flex Flash project at all- I was under the impression the OP was
> *very* concerned about size, although that could just've been my (often
> lax) comprehension skills :)
Strictly my opinion, but I'd
If you go for size, i'd use Flash. There is nothing wrong with it, as
you are not developing a enterprise application with a big team.
Cheers
Ralf.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Josh McDonald wrote:
> I definitely agree with you Gabriel, you wouldn't catch me doing a non-Flex
> Flash project a
I definitely agree with you Gabriel, you wouldn't catch me doing a non-Flex
Flash project at all- I was under the impression the OP was *very* concerned
about size, although that could just've been my (often lax) comprehension
skills :)
-Josh
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM, gabriel montagné wrot
>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
> tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re- write the app
> to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down to under
> 200KB? I think Flex is a great tech
"Hello";
addChild(textField);
Gordon Smith
Adobe Flex SDK Team
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Alex Harui
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:15 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for wi
swf considerably. I think
helloworld is about 45K when using the framework cache.
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of devenhariyani
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:57 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong te
What I meant is that you don't seem to be using any Flex functionality
beside ArrayCollection, and you'd do fine using Array or Vector.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:56 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps
> written completely in ActionScript 3?
Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps
written completely in ActionScript 3? I did some quick searches on
Google, but didn't find much.
I would rather try to re-write the app in AS3 to see if it makes the
file size manageable, rather than abandon flex completely.
Th
I wouldn't call this 'simple' but I do think your doubts are well
founded. Looking at this example, I don't see any real use of Flex.
You have what looks like some animated state changes and a few
navigation components - skipping Flex in this case might be easier.
I do small and large sc
To be honest with a widget that simple, if you're worried about size just
build it in ActionScript.
-Josh
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
> tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-write
> the a
Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-write
the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down
to under 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not
the right tool for the job I will
24 matches
Mail list logo
