Apache Flex SDKs don't have signed RSLs that get separately cached by the Flash Player. Sure you can make your own RSLs and somehow hope it doesn't get booted from the browser cache, but I don't know why it would stay in the cache longer than a statically linked SWF.
If you do turn on RSLs in Apache Flex SDKs, it should be smart about which RSLs get loaded and only load the ones you need and not "all" of them. Modules should not increase in size if statically linked unless they are using classes not used by the main app. And you can build shared code modules for your modules if needed. So, when considering Apache Flex, first realize that you must use the browser cache. My logic says, if you're going to use the browser cache, then RSLs won't help you (it would help if you are loading multiple applications from the same domain), so statically link your main SWF and then optimize it. If you were to use RSLs and the cache is missed then your total download would be much more than when statically linked, and if your one main SWF is in the cache, the fact that it is 600K bigger because it is statically linked shouldn't affect startup that much, if at all. Then, if you have one main SWF that is 500K of your own code, I'm still curious because that sounds like a lot to me. I haven't used FaceBook's libraries: how big is their "Hello World" app? And then, if a test of 500K+RSLs when all cached and a cached 1.1MB single SWF startup is the same, then you're back to optimizing startup. Of course, I could be missing something. -Alex On 12/3/13 12:52 PM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >You are right. using static framework linkage balloons the modules >beyond usefulness, easily double as you say, and sometimes more. > >Ideally, there would be a way for me to build a special optimized single >file RSL, and use a third party software such as Kindi SecureSWF and sign >it with my own certificate, and then include in that RSL all the core >classes needed for everything, app, modules, etc... > >certainly the overhead for a 3rd party certificate would be minimal >compared to the cost of linking the framework statically. And it would >be nice to trim down the framework to the bare essentials. > >If i could hack the RSLs in this way then I could propose Apache Flex as >being more secure and lower weight than a 4.5.1 sdk solution. Sure I >would need to religiously maintain the contents of the "FlexCore.swf" >RSL, but that's no big deal. perhaps i could even write some nifty tool >that uses ant that scans all the unique classes used in the various >link-report.xml's from the app and modules and then auto package this RSL >at build time... > >I'm fully aware that this would be challenging... but I'm just trying to >think of a way to be able to take our app into the future using Apache >Flex. I don't want to be locked into 4.5.1 for the next 6 or more years >of our application's projected life. That's the lazy way out. > >> Subject: Re: SharedLibrary not works with SDK 4.11 >> From: harbs.li...@gmail.com >> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 22:12:00 +0200 >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> >> My educated guess on the size of such an app without using RSLs >>(depending on exactly which classes you're using) is about double your >>current size. That's still manageable. You can still use modules as you >>do today. Of course an issue is going to be all the modules. Every >>module gets bigger without using RSLs. >> >> Have you tried compiling without RSLs to see the actual difference in >>size? >> >> Harbs >> >> On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:41 PM, David Coleman wrote: >> >> > >>http://apps.facebook.com/houseoffun/?fb_source=bookmark_apps&ref=bookmark >>s&count=18&fb_bmpos=3_18 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > the main file (for the upcoming version) is 566k, currently it is >> > slightly over 600K, the assets are ~3 mb and i have implemented most >> > popups as external modules, to ensure that they load from cdn only >>one >> > time per session. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > The main application is a spark application. I use only simple >>objects, >> > Group, List etc... nothing uber fancy. Most of the heavy lifting is >> > done with AS3 for speed. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > We have a very large number of users. I can't statically link the >>libs >> > because ppl expect the blinding fast load that I have achieved. 566K >> > loads in the blink of an eye on even mediocre systems/connections. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Personally I would prefer to statically link the framework because >>RSL's >> > are yet another hit the browser has to make, but we need the users to >> > get into the game and play as fast as possible. I have maintained >>the >> > fastest load in our category on facebook for >> > nearly a year now. :) I intend/need to keep it that way. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > so your short answer is "a very big, yet very, very SMALL and >>optimized >> > facebook app" which is exactly why i have to use them :) >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Any way around this limitation would open the door for me to promote >>and >> > fast-track the adoption of Apache Flex. I need small and I need >>fast. >> > The rest is academic. Once I have the tools, I'll make it happen, >>and >> > we will migrate to Apache Flex. Our target >> > Flash Player version is 10.3 for maximum penetration. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > If there is any glimmer of hope to accomplish this... tell me, and >>let me know how I can help. >> > >> >> From: aha...@adobe.com >> >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> >> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:22:26 -0800 >> >> Subject: Re: SharedLibrary not works with SDK 4.11 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/2/13 10:13 AM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com> >>wrote: >> >> >> >>> Having not tried this solution myself, this is pure speculation... >>but >> >>> couldn't local storage store this? set domain to be "*" and >>retrieve it >> >>> from the public svn repo. if not present the RSL manager can load >>it up >> >>> and in this way we can sign it with our own Cert and validate that >>cert >> >>> independent of Adobe? Would this be workable? >> >> I think you'd hit local storage limits. >> >> >> >>> RSL's are the only reason that I hesitate to migrate our Facebook >>app to >> >>> apache. it will kill our CDN. >> >>> >> >> Just curious: Have you actually measured the difference without >>RSLs? How >> >> big a Facebook app is this? >> >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> > >> >
