Thanks Kevin. It's people like you that foster the growth of all this so that those of us with experience, but new to Flex, can get up to speed, and perhaps return the favor to another newbie down the road.
-r --- Kevin Langdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert, > Flex supports a number of ways to transfer data > between client and server. > The most common ones are AMF (mx:RemoteObject) and > SOAP (mx:WebService). As > with any two technical solutions, some engineers > just generally prefer one > of the other. But each has pros and cons that make > it a better solution for > solving different problems. I think that most of us > could agree on the > following pros and cons as they relate to SOAP vs. > AMF. > > - AMF requires less bandwidth > - AMF is faster to parse on the client side > - AMF parsing time grows linearly, SOAP > exponentially > - SOAP is usually easier to debug > - SOAP is easier to extend server side handling > - SOAP is more widely supported by server and > application vendors > - SOAP is open and well documented > > Any one else want to add to that list? > > The best public performance information that I have > seen is from FlashOrb: > http://www.flashorb.com/articles/soap_vs_flash_remoting_benchmark.shtml > This is slightly outdated since the release of Flash > 8. The memory leaks > the article mentions have been addressed in later > versions of Flash 7. > > An important distinction between the FlashOrb > benchmarks and the ones > Anatole posted are that these are comparing SOAP and > AMF from within the > Flash Player. I believe Anatole was comparing AMF > in the Player to SOAP in > IE. > > Another part of the discussion was some excited > comments about something > called E4X or ECMAScript for XML. This is really > only a new syntax for > traversing and writing xml. Kind of a Actionscript > meets XPath thing. I > would also expect that the rewriting of the Flash > XML parsers will bring > some dramatic improvements to performance. For > details on E4X check out the > ECMAScript 4.0 specifications. > > Kevin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Thompson > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:44 PM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Open source AMF > solutions that work with flex > > Would either of you mind giving people like me a > one-liner and perhaps a url to an introduction to > the > issue you are talking about? > > It sounds quite interesting, but I'm afraid I'm > lost. > > -r > > --- Anatole Tartakovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Kevin, > > We had performance as a priority as weel . As > a > > result we went further > > in reduction of metadata in packages by generating > > client-side proxies for > > all server-side methods thus giving much smaller > > footprint then SOAP or AMF. > > That was really minor improvememnt though - main > > benefits were in ability to > > extend the set of basic types to framework > specific > > data types. The real > > performance issues start with thousands of rows in > ( > > im most cases) > > relational format. AMF goes to some extent in > those > > (and I was very pleased > > with performance results) but final performance is > > going to depend on > > ability to search, filter and render portions of > > information. Moreover, when > > you apply changes to those you need to "remember" > > old state and some other > > info - XML allows you to extend itself for "data > > aware framework" eathier > > then arrays. > > I can only relate to my benchmarks. Here is > what > > I observed for 20K > > rows/5 columns result sets on the same > client/server > > platform: > > > > Flex 1.5 - 11 seconds to see datagrid - AMF > > Proprietary AJAX with IE/MicrosoftXML as a data > > model using GZip/ > > JavaScript+htc for rendering - 8 seconds > > (compression ratio of XML was 94%) > > Java front end with XML to Java Arrays - 43 > seconds > > Java front end with RPC to Java Arrays - 9 seconds > > > > While I have no doubt that ActionScript model is > > more efficient than > > Microsoft's requiring recompilation of JavaScript > on > > each screen invocation > > the MSXMLparser seems to provide better > performance > > then (binary > > protocol+object instantiation). > > > > I am really looking forward to Flex 4 / E4X > > implementation, especially > > in MM would be able to provide comparable or > better > > performance/features on > > parser level or use native ones for the > appropriate > > platforms. > > > > > > As far as abstacting code - most of long term > > developers are likely to > > generate most of the server interface code with > > automated tools that would > > export both data structure and methods signatures. > > We have ones that > > generate wrappers for both WebServices and SQL > > statements generating both > > server and client code. That generated code is > > already outside of the > > "client" code and is referenced by name only. If > > that approach is of > > interest by the community, we could open source it > > and turn it into plugin / > > make sure that methods and their signatures are > > exposed in the > > FlexBuilder/Eclipse providing much better > > development environment. > > > > Sincerely, > > Anatole > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kevin Langdon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> > > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:08 AM > > Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Open source AMF > > solutions that work with flex > > > > > > > Anatole, > > > > > > 1. Yes I am very aware of how Firewalls and > > Proxies can wreak havoc on > > > binary streaming protocols. AMF is not a binary > > streaming protocol, its > > > simply a stateless HTTP POST of data. If a > > firewall can't handle AMF then > > > it will likely have problems on things as simple > > as multi-part form POST. > > > > > > 2. This is a mute argument. Your standard AMF > > packet is smaller than a > > > similar SOAP envelope. Yes, if you GZIP the > SOAP > > it will be comparable to > > > the AMF packet. But you can also GZIP the AMF > and > > then it is that much > > > smaller yet. > > > > > > 3. Your talking about the speed on the server > > side. The issues are in the > > > speed of parsing on the client-side. The simple > > truth is that it will > > > always take longer to parse XML compared to a > > binary protocol. In one I > > > have a string that I need to check every > character > === message truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/nhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com 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/
