I don't think RSLs are a bad idea for a single application if you are using signed RSLs (swz files) because they may already be in the Flash Player Cache and therefore not need to be downloaded. But to guarantee your Flash Player can load a signed RSL you will need to require Flash Player 9,0,124 or higher.
-Darrell --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Nick Collins <ndcoll...@...> wrote: > > A big part of that reason is that when you attach any library, be it > the SDK or an external SWC, as a RSL, it is going to increase the size > of a singular app. The reason is that when a library is specified as > an RSL, the ENTIRE library gets loaded, not just the parts that are > "needed", since it doesn't know what classes will be needed. > Additionally, RSLs are all loaded at Frame 1, and are mandatory > (meaning all RSLs are required to be loaded), increasing the load time > if they haven't been downloaded previously. > > Where you see the major gains with RSLs is when you are using them > across multiple applications, because rather than re-download the RSL, > it will pull the RSL from the browser cache, speeding the load time, > although it is still loading more classes than otherwise. For this > reason RSLs are usually a bad idea for a single application, because > it will actually have a smaller size all compiled into a single SWF, > and loading bits of the application via modules, which are only loaded > as needed. > > Nick > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Dan <yldle...@...> wrote: > > Hi Flexcoders, > > > > It is always claimed that by caching framework.swz of Flex 3, the swf size > > is always the smaller. However. from the generated linked-report. in Flex 3, > > some classes like RSLloader and some ResourceBundle classes are being added, > > which actually increase the swf size. > > > > Since my application is making up of first loading a shared library, and > > then upon runtime, it loaded other very small modules. These modules are > > making up of very small file size (a few k byte), the overhead added by > > these Flex3 loaders and bundles has largly increase the TOTAL application > > size by a huge amount (cause there are hundreds of this kind of small > > modules when summing up the little increase of this overhead, it becomes M > > byte). The start up time is down a bit (loading the smaller library and > > smaller init app), but the overall brandwidth consumpt much more now. > > > > So is there any way to trim off those overhead? Or I need to compile those > > smaller modules by a Flex 2 compiler? > > > > Anyone have any idea? > > > > Dan > > > > >
