You may also look out for an issue we ran into. The path to our framework RSL was not the default (same folder as main app swf). For some reason when compiling on FB3, we would get framework RSLs in both the path we wanted and the default (same folder as main app swf). The framework RSLs in the path we wanted were "bad" and wouldn't load when trying to load the web page. As it turned out, the RSLs in the path were copies of those that come with the framework. It has to do with matching digests (all security concerns). So in our "release" build, we'd get those extra RSLs with our main swf, and RSLs where we wanted them. A simple "cut/paste" fixed the issue, but it took us a few hours and builds to realize what was going on with the framework RSLs - no fun that's for sure! :D
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Doug McCune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think mainly you just need to be aware of the size implications > (both good and bad). By using the framework RSL you are removing the > framework from your SWF, which will reduce your SWF size by quite a > bit. However, you are also requiring the loading of the full framework > RSL. The full RSL includes all the framework classes, not just those > used in your SWF, so this RSL is actually larger than the savings that > you have gotten with your smaller swf. But this framework RSL can be > cached and can even be cached from other people's apps. > > So if someone visits your app without ever having loaded the RSL > (either from you or another person's app) then their initial load time > will actually be longer than if you did not use the RSL. However,if > they have viewed another Flex app that used the RSL, then your load > time will be faster. > > The other thing that I've heard is that you can't monkey patch > framework classes if using the RSL, since that gets loaded after your > main app, the RSL framework classes take precedence. > > Doug > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I haven't heard of any :-) > > > > On 9/8/08 1:26 PM, "greg h" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am on a team that is pushing into production a public facing Flex > > application on the Internet. We have configured the app to use the Flash > > Player's caching of the Framework RSL. > > > > Before going live, I am posting here to see if anyone has experience that > > causes them to caution against using the Framework RSL (e.g. > > framework_3.0.0.477.swz)? > > > > I have seen the following post by Dmitri Girski's with his analysis on where > > RSLs offer the most benefit (Thanks Dmitri :-): > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/message/108149 > > > > But I have not had luck tracking down any horror stories. I certainly am > > heartened by this lack of horror stories. However, if by using the Framework > > RSL we might be introducing any risks or pitfalls, we sure would prefer to > > know before we go live, rather than hear about them from our customers ;-) > > > > If anyone might have advice they are willing to share, we would be most > > appreciative if you could be so kind as to share your experiences. > > > > Thanks, > > > > g > > > > >
