For instance i have an app in flash builder with a boat load of modules
I set one of these modules to be optimized for MyApp.mxml
the embedded images in MyOptimizedModule end up in MyApp.mxml.
The good thing is that MyApp and MyOptimizedModule can now be statically linked
w/o doubling its size. the bad thing is that now I have defeated the purpose
of putting my assets in the module.
can I optimize a module for MyApp without all of its embedded assets ending up
in the optimization target?
It is my understanding that optimizing a module for a specific application ends
up removing all embedded assets from the module and storing them in the
application.
If you want i can reproduce this in a few example projects and post it up on my
git.
> From: aha...@adobe.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:19:06 -0800
> Subject: Re: SharedLibrary not works with SDK 4.11
>
> I don't understand the part about embedded assets. Can you provide more
> details? The -externs option should let you keep any class out of any SWF.
>
> You can create a shared code module or pack other classes needed by
> modules onto extra frames of the main SWF.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 12/3/13 4:05 PM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I do agree with your numbers, (how could I not - they are spot on). The
> >primary issue is that WE host the rsl or the static link difference. and
> >the static link difference affects the size of our modules too. So it's
> >100% more for modules, and since we have 7.8 MB of modules (18 different
> >popups each with animations/hd graphics etc), then we are talking about
> >static linking costing a lot more.
> >
> >If i can customize an RSL to service all 18 modules and the main app and
> >only have to distribute one file, that is even better for a new user than
> >the Adobe RSL's... ok we have to pay for the CDN costs... but it's less
> >than an extra 7.8 MB of static links for all our modules.
> >
> >Harbs pointed out the exact reason RSL is so critical to our use case.
> >Modules are doubled.
> >
> >Now, if the modules could only statically link what is lacking in the
> >static links of the main application, with out optimizing them and
> >pushing all the embedded assets to the main application... kinda like a
> >"half-optimized" module, then static link could really work for us. but
> >as long as an optimized module will push all the assets into the main
> >app, i can't optimize them to share the static links. so they need their
> >own static links...
> >
> >Maybe this is something that can work!
> >
> >how can i optimize a module to share the static links of the main app
> >without pushing all the embedded assets in the module to the main app?
> >does mxmlc include a metatag to exclude a class (embedded asset) from
> >module optimization? so it would stay in the module while i optimize it
> >for the main app, and then only have to statically link the few bits and
> >pieces that are lacking in each.
> >
> >> From: aha...@adobe.com
> >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:51:44 -0800
> >> Subject: Re: SharedLibrary not works with SDK 4.11
> >>
> >> OK, so let me make sure I understand:
> >>
> >> For first time users, they have to download 3MB of Assets and the 600K
> >>SWF
> >> and hopefully not the 1.4MB's of framework RSLs.
> >> For returning users, 3MB Assets and 600K SWF is hopefully in the browser
> >> cache.
> >>
> >> If you switch to Apache Flex:
> >> First-time users will have to download either
> >> 1) 3MB of Assets, 600K of SWF and 1.4MB of RSLs from your CDN.
> >> 2) 3MB of Assets and 1.2MB of SWF if you statically link.
> >>
> >> So, Apache Flex statically linked is another 600K and represents an
> >> additional 12% in download time.
> >>
> >> I don't know what the RSL penetration is of Flex 4.5.1, but every day
> >> folks are buying new computers and there are fewer and fewer Flex 4.5.1
> >> apps out there in the world so the probability your first-time customers
> >> will have those RSLs is diminishing. Over time, more and more of your
> >> customers will be downloading the 1.4MB of framework RSLs as well, and
> >>the
> >> statically linked solution will be the smaller download.
> >>
> >> Have you used ItDepends or a similar link-report analyzer to see how
> >>much
> >> of that 600K is Greensock, Tweener and other stuff?
> >>
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 12/3/13 3:11 PM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> >Upon re-reading this I realize that I didn't understand your question.
> >> >
> >> >What it will save us is that in the majority of instances, we will
> >> >benefit from the cached RSL.
> >> >
> >> >And we will be able to still push smaller files so that NEW users do
> >>not
> >> >see a jump in the time that it takes to open the app.
> >> >
> >> >Competition is high in this genre of games, and being the fastest to
> >>load
> >> >is important. We won "Best social Casino Product of 2013" this year.
> >> >Maybe if we were not the fastest to load we might have still won.
> >>Maybe
> >> >not. But we are. And I would hazard the guess that it played a role.
> >> >Many ppl already HAVE the RSL's cached on their machines. I have to
> >> >offset that benefit by minimizing as much as possible the hit that any
> >> >Apache based solution would incur.
> >> >
> >> >As with any social game the first impression is the most important one.
> >> >Especially with those who are disposed to spend real money. I know
> >>that
> >> >TECHNICALLY there are many reasons to just link it statically and
> >>forget
> >> >about it. But from a business perspective, every shred of speed that
> >>we
> >> >can statistically extract from the app is worth it.
> >> >
> >> >I can't justify moving all the framework RSL's to our CDN and storing
> >> >them in browser only cache instead of perpetual flash player storage.
> >> >That's why I asked about local storage hacks. I CAN justify putting a
> >> >SINGLE file on our CDN, if it means greater stability (ie: new SDK) and
> >> >downloading a smaller amount of bytes than the 4.5.1 RSL's. a few
> >>bytes
> >> >are big money when you are distributing them to a million ppl.
> >> >
> >> >Unfortunately, that's the reality of the business side of a social
> >>app. :(
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> From: david_coleman_...@hotmail.com
> >> >> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> >> Subject: RE: SharedLibrary not works with SDK 4.11
> >> >> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 19:56:13 -0300
> >> >>
> >> >> It saves us a great deal of time and resources when we have to
> >>release
> >> >>new art.
> >> >>
> >> >> We can break cache on the art asset module and not have to run a full
> >> >>QA regression on the main app. This gives us the flexibility as a
> >> >>company to deliver constantly changing content to our users w/o
> >>forcing
> >> >>them to download every file again, or dedicating our time and
> >>resources
> >> >>to QA of the application when we only want to change a single image in
> >> >>the game list.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is a logistical and political need as much as it is a technical
> >> >>decision to approach it this way.
> >> >>
> >> >> > From: aha...@adobe.com
> >> >> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >> >> > Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:43:33 -0800
> >> >> > Subject: Re: SharedLibrary not works with SDK 4.11
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 12/3/13 2:38 PM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >Actually Alex, what is the biggest culprit in our file is
> >>Greensock,
> >> >>and
> >> >> > >after that, a whole mess of engine logic needed to handle the
> >> >>interface
> >> >> > >with the games. Also some of our legacy animations use Tweener,
> >>so
> >> >>for
> >> >> > >now I'm cursed with having to include BOTH libs in the main app.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >I also think that 500K is too much and like I said, each version I
> >> >> > >whittle it down a little more.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >I've often thought of loading the engine container as a module to
> >> >>remove
> >> >> > >another 100K or so from the main app.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >How would i create a custom RSL? Can I automate it via ant to
> >> >>generate
> >> >> > >it via the link-reports? I'd like to keep one RSL for ALL files,
> >> >>app,
> >> >> > >and modules to increase cache hits, and not hit a different file
> >>each
> >> >> > >time.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >I'm really curious to experiment with this. It's ok if the
> >>browser
> >> >>cache
> >> >> > >expires, that's beyond my control, but 99% of the time it will be
> >>a
> >> >> > >benefit - I'm ok with those numbers.
> >> >> > I asked this in the other reply, but how will that save you over a
> >> >>single
> >> >> > monolithic SWF? If you're not in the cache, then instead of
> >>loading
> >> >>two
> >> >> > things, one of which may contain classes you don't need until
> >>later,
> >> >>you
> >> >> > only load what you need when you need it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Alex
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
