Ok, just to make it 100% clear if 3.2 is cached and mine is 3.0 you say that 3.0 will be downloaded even 3.2 is there?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Crossdomain RSLs are per public release. There is a separate RSL for > 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 and will be for any other release we "publish". Your code > will be specifically looking for the version it was built against and if it > isn't there, the RSL will be downloaded. > > > > *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Fotis Chatzinikos > *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:47 PM > > *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? > SWF file sizes are too big... > > > > Thanks Alex, the following makes much sense!: > > >>Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching. The framework > is specially signed and loaded into a >>special cache and used for all > domains. Normally RSLs are per-domain. > > Any ideas on the version of the rsl? Ie if i am using v xxx.2 and xxx.3 is > cached (later/newer) will it be ok or it will need to download my older > version rsl? > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching. The framework is > specially signed and loaded into a special cache and used for all domains. > Normally RSLs are per-domain. > > > > Flex is a framework. Most frameworks focus on making development easier by > letting the developer set a flag and get different behavior. By definition, > that means there is a lot of code there just in case you need it, so that > means that you'll always be able to write a smaller app by doing it yourself > and not carrying any "just-in-case" code you know you don't need. > > > > FWIW, because some members of my extended family and friends are still on > dialup, I still publish content they will be looking at w/o using Flex. > Takes a bit longer, but it is pretty simple content and size and > compatibility with older players is more important. > > > > > > *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Ralf Bokelberg > *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM > *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? > SWF file sizes are too big... > > > > Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is > really more about enterprise development process, less about > technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your > 500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably. > > Ralf. > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan > <ultr...@gmail.com<ultraky%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like > saying > > 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our > > Flash app?' Unless you > > > > Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly > > released in June 2006. Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that > Flex > > is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me. > > It's all Flash.... and soon Flex will have a new name so..... > > > > On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote: > > > > This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the > > newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans > > to have more interactive widgets in the future. > > > > > > > > > -- > Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D. > Founder, > Phinnovation > fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com, > > > -- Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D. Founder, Phinnovation fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com,
