On 3/22/06, Renaun Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I totally agree with the reasoning behind the longer compile times for
streamlined build process that take quality control into account. I
just wanted to make sure I wasn't losing it. For the life of me, I
was stuck on thinking that speed was the main factor in the reasons to
use mxmlc. Thanks for helping me get over it, lol.
I really like the Flex 2 build/debug as you go capability. But you
are right there needs to be a good process in place to handle tests
and compiling issues for large applications, and using build scripts
and mxmlc are perfect way to (semi-)automate it.
Renaun
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Johannes Nel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >>My question then would be, is the speed of compilation a main factor
> >>in the choice of compilation methods?
>
> well as i orignally stated the appserver approach is the fastest, so
if its
> speed you are after, yeah go for it. some of the larger projects i have
> worked on has taken up to a 1:30 but thats rare. use of swc's and
the like
> can speed things like this up substantially.
>
> the fact of the matter (IMO at least is) that i would take much slower
> compilation speed for a streamlined process that highlight bugs quicker
> (unit tests for example) and the flexibility that ant gives you,
since in
> the long run you save time
>
>
>
> On 3/22/06, Renaun Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The use of the multiple targeted build scripts (unittests, app, or
> > all) makes sense.
> >
> > My question then would be, is the speed of compilation a main factor
> > in the choice of compilation methods?
> >
> > It sounds like there are other factors that depend on the development
> > teams practices that weigh in the to decision then just speed of
> > compilation.
> >
> > In regards to just the factor of speed, on an application with roughly
> > 50 .mxml and 50+ .as files whats the typical compile times? 20s-30s?
> >
> > Renaun
> >
> > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Johannes Nel" <johannes.nel@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > this is both for develpers (developer chooses which target to
compile -
> > > unitests,app or all) and our continues integration server. we only
> > deploy a
> > > swf to production.
> > >
> > > On 3/22/06, Renaun Erickson <renaun@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Johannes for insight.
> > > >
> > > > Is this what you do as a developer on a dev box? Or only on
the major
> > > > builds on the deployment (staging/production) servers?
> > > >
> > > > Renaun
> > > >
> > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Johannes Nel" <johannes.nel@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > hear hear on what david says. using ant we
> > > > > update from svn
> > > > > build unit tests app using mxmlc, if all tests pass
> > > > > use mxmlc to build app
> > > > >
> > > > > so yeah it has its benefits :)
> > > > >
> > > > > so it is critical to the process as
> > > > > On 3/22/06, Dave Wolf <gatorj24@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That depends what you mean by better. In Flex 1.5 you will
> > find very
> > > > > > quickly that the JIT server compiler leaks memory very badly
> > and wont
> > > > > > work with an application of any real size. For any kind of
> > serious
> > > > > > application the server compilation simply wont work for you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We use mxmlc called from autoamted ANT builds. We're pretty
> > attament
> > > > > > about it all. We have a very well designed build and source
> > control
> > > > > > process that has made real impacts on the quality and
> > reliability of
> > > > > > our solutions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, performance isnt stunning, but given that its a two pass
> > > > > > compilation thats not shocking either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We're hoping for some marked improvement in Flex2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dave Wolf
> > > > > > Cynergy Systems, Inc.
> > > > > > Macromedia Flex Alliance Partner
> > > > > > http://www.cynergysystems.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Email: dave.wolf@
> > > > > > Office: 866-CYNERGY
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Renaun Erickson" <renaun@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After some more reading I am under the assumption that for
> > > > development
> > > > > > > of Flex 1.5 apps its better to use the Java web server
access to
> > > > > > > compile with caching on. Is this correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Renaun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Renaun Erickson"
<renaun@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ## This post is in regard to Flex 1.5 ##
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have finally got around to trying out mxmlc and
fastmxmlc
> > > > with a xml
> > > > > > > > build script. The purpose was to see if it was faster
to use
> > > > mxmlc to
> > > > > > > > compile on my development environment versus using the web
> > server
> > > > > > > > (accessing the mxml by a url).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not seeing a big difference in compile time between
> > the two
> > > > > > > > methods. I tried RSL's but dont think they are setup
> > correctly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My big question is how do I get my compile times down on
> > my local
> > > > > > > > development machine?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Renaun
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > j:pn
> > > > > http://www.lennel.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > j:pn
> > > http://www.lennel.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> j:pn
> http://www.lennel.org
>
--
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/
--
j:pn
http://www.lennel.org
--
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
- Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
