RG,
1 & 2 & 3 are both linked.
200 kb for a shell plus another 600 kb for RSL's in the initial
download is too nasty.
What i need is modularization of the framework so that it can 'broken
up',
a cairngorm framework that supports a Model that is suited for module
development,
and an alternative to databinding that doesn't break each time a
module is set to invisible or unloaded.
Not being able to use embedded fonts is also painful.
This is not a module bashing email by the way.
This is just a perspective of the the pain i've been through.
Bjorn
On 09/03/2007, at 5:17 AM, Roger Gonzalez wrote:
What is the issue with "smaller swf output file sizes"?
If you use link-report and load-externs, you can optimize swf size
for both the modules and the main app without any issues.
Just out of curiosity, have you filed any bugs regarding the other
issues you've encountered? (Cross-SWF font access is a problem at
the player level, but the other stuff is all fixable.)
-rg
From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bjorn Schultheiss
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 7:00 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Modules at 360Flex conference
Shaun,
Smaller Swf output file sizes,
Module support within the mx framework,
Module support within Cairngorm,
Issues with Viewstacks and Binding,
Embedding Fonts,
I think there are a couple more as well.
Bjorn
On 08/03/2007, at 1:11 PM, shaun wrote:
Bjorn Schultheiss wrote:
> Hey Alex,
>
> After your experience with modules do you believe it was the
correct
> decision to include it in 2.01 as opposed to waiting for 3.0?
! > Over here we just refactored away from modules to the mon!
olithic ria
> because of outstanding issues..
>
What are the outstanding issues?
cheers,
- shaun
