Hi Roger, Darron,
[No, I can't possibly let this email live on with Darron's name
misspelled. :) I'm resending it... list admins please feel free to
delete the original message.]
>>I *hate* the idea of Flex running on the server, and I think
>>that's why
>>it took me so long to start using it. In my opinion, there's
>>no reason
>>a .swf needs to be compiled for every request, .swf is not
>>server-side
>>technology, and Flash has always been client side
Roger was correct in saying that the SWF does not get compiled every
time (only when the source changes) -- this is a neat little bit of
functionality that circumvents the SWF caching issues that some
applications run into. You can add a similar feature to force Flash to
download the latest external SWF only when it has changed (and use the
cached version otherwise) with a little server-side code.
That said, the main reasons why Flex runs on the server are the following:
1. As a server product, it can be sold at server pricing
2. Macromedia wanted to cater to J2EE programmers -- they had a hammer
(JSP knowledge, etc.) and needed a nail (so Macromedia had to make Flex
look like a nail). Having a presentation server makes sense in the
stateless world of HTML applications ("AJAX" not withstanding).
Otherwise, you're right -- there is no reason for Flex to be a
server-side product.
Flash developers who have been in the field long enough can easily see
that Flex, in essence, is Generator + MXML + components-with-bug-fixes.
Generator was discontinued with the release of the Flash 6 player for a
reason: There's no need for it. OK, I lied, if your project has a need
to generate MXML dynamically in response to user requests, then that's
one reason to have Flex as a server. However, this is a very weak use
case and, for everything else, the Flash player will accommodate you :)
(Some people have the misconception that remoting works differently in
Flash and Flex -- that's not true -- once the SWF has been generated,
Flex == Flash!) This is not news to the good people at Macromedia and
it is only logical that this model will be evaluated when deciding the
future direction of Flex in Macromedia/Adobe's impending face-off with
Microsoft for dominance of the RIA/Smart-client market (and thus, quite
possibly, the future of the Internet.)
>Flex makes easy stuff easy and hard stuff possible.
This is true: Some things are just not possible currently with Flash
since the components are buggy and have only been fixed for Flex ;)
There is also nothing to stop developers building layout components in
Flash that provide the same functionality as their counterparts in Flex
(and in fact this has been done -- Ted Partrick's FLOW comes to mind.)
>I'm not sure why you should feel dissed; Flash Authoring and Flex are
>targeted at different people,
Yes, Flex appears to be targeted to people who like to work with
bug-free components and Flash towards people who don't mind working with
buggy components... Hey, you asked why :)
Roger, I hear you -- yes, the target markets are different -- but you
have to understand many Flash developers echo the sentiments expressed
by Darron.
But perhaps some backstory is in order to make better sense of all this:
Before Flex was released, Macromedia marketed Flash MX 2004 Professional
as *the* tool for RIA creation. Some people (call them gullible if you
like, I was one of them) bought into this. Hey, some of us even invested
time, effort and money into using the new Forms view before finding out
that it was unusable in its current state. Macromedia received a lot of
bad press and karma over that release and has acknowledged its mistakes
and pledged to make up for them with the next release (which I am 100%
sure that they will.) However, a few months after the ill-fated Flash MX
2004 Professional release, Flex was released, at a considerable mark-up,
and suddenly it was being billed as *the* tool for RIA creation. But
what really put salt on the wound was that Macromedia fixed component
bugs and added component features to Flex and didn't update the
components in Flash MX 2004 Professional. Believe it or not, it's not
just Darron -- there are many Flash developers who remain, to this day,
royally pissed off about this.
>and Flex was specifically built to target
>the pain points of developing apps in Flash.
Like using buggy components? Again, I hear you -- yes, I wouldn't want
to "go back" to building another RIA in Flash ever again. The Flex
workflow is way superior. Flex is the dog's bullocks -- we're not
contradicting that! But you have to ask yourself what it is about Flex
that makes it so much more useful. Is it because Flex is a server-side
product? (No.) Is it because it has better components (yes), a better
visual layout tool (yes), a source format that you can actually diff and
which doesn't randomly get corrupted (yes).
>In fact, I'm pretty sure you owe us a beer.
So is the new price $29,000 + a beer? :)
All the best,
Aral
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/
