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 <dzn...@gmail.com> 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 :) > > -Josh > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM, gabriel montagné <gabr...@rojored.com> > wrote: >> >> >> 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 >> > <Application> 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 sadly have to go to Flash. >> >> I'm primarily a Flex developer and, of course it depends on what you want >> to >> do, but I wouldn't go for a "pure AS3" project unless it was a simple >> banner. >> 200KB is too little. A normal medium size flickr image already weights >> about >> 100KB. >> >> Even though widgets might use little area, they are often complete >> websites >> upon themselves. I did a facebook widget for Target not long ago. It was >> a >> simple widget but still it had to load data from different sources, it had >> to >> do reporting, it had to forward requests for products, it had a carousel >> with >> details info and additional images, etc... and of course, it had to do the >> normal things that all of these flash movies have to do: it had to load >> smoothly, it had instantiate it's components, it had to load and cache >> stuff, >> it had to have embedded fonts and assets, load backgrounds, etc. And it >> had >> to be ready in a very short time. >> >> All these things Flex solves already for you... you can redo them and >> perhaps >> save some bandwidth, but the cost is high: you'll loose all the >> architecture >> and debugging that the Adobe engineers (not to mention the Flex community >> in >> general) have already put into the framework, (which is made, of course, >> from >> the very same kind of actionscript that you would have to write yourself >> anyways to solve the very same problems.) >> >> I did that widget in full fledged Flex (+ Cairngorm + UM Extensions, >> etc.), it >> ended up "costing" like 350KB... and nobody complained, specially since we >> could cut down one third of the initially scoped development time and it >> turned out to be robust and pretty much bug free. >> >> -- >> gabriel montagné láscaris comneno >> http://rojored.com >> t/506.8367.6794 >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> -- >> Flexcoders Mailing List >> FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt >> Alternative FAQ location: >> https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847 >> Search Archives: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > > > > -- > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." > > Like the cut of my jib? Check out my Flex blog! > > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald > :: 0437 221 380 :: j...@gfunk007.com > :: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/ > :: http://twitter.com/sophistifunk >
