Run time XML to define new MXML and complied SWF? No way man, I simplify agree with Ely, what´s the real impact of such request for the customers, Remeber that Flex is for Best User Experience.
Wanna some dynamic content to be loaded or created into other componentes or application, Use for SURE the repeter or UIComponent set for do that. Or even better, Flex XML classes and XMLList package has a HUGE possibilities to the developers do such thing. Reading xml to define new Interface for SURE isn´t what companies looks like, dynamic creation policy it´s must better then that. Think a little bit and you will see that´s completly unecessery at this time. Maybe in the future but not now. - Best Igor Costa On 5/18/07, John Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For the archives, compile times can be greatly reduced using fcsh, though I'm not sure how you'd go about using it in a server-side environment. http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex_Compiler_Shell John On May 17, 2007, at 8:30 PM, Paul J DeCoursey wrote: > You can easily integrate a compile on demand system using the Flex SDK > and Tomcat. The problem is the compilers are not very fast. I'm > guessing that the Apache/IIS module does some caching so that compiles > run faster because they don't have to reload large libraries each > time. > Once the compiler is opened up a little more you should be able to > implement this kind of thing. > > Austin Kottke wrote: >> Ely, >> >> I find runtime MXML something that would be invaluable. >> >> It is something that if implemented could make developing in flex >> a lot >> more scaleable and integration with the server end would be a lot >> more >> feasible. (As in doing HTTPRequests where serverside MXML could be >> generated through Velocity/JSP and then given back to the ui) A >> lot of >> developers don't know a thing about flex, but can learn basic MXML >> for >> layout or simple scripting and implement basic server side >> operations. >> And if these are kept just as mxml it makes updates in the future >> easier. We can then just tell someone (edit the MXML) and you're >> done, >> instead of "download the flex sdk, set your ant build, yada ya" -- >> some >> aren't programmers, but MXML is very easy to learn. It's a lot more >> confrontable for a designer/layout guy to tackle. >> >> Anyway, runtime MXML would be something that would majorly increase >> scalability and integration with servers - similar to the Apache >> IIS mod >> for JSP, etc - the only problem is that it's just for Apache or IIS. >> Some run tomcat, resin, etc. But having it on the client end would >> eliminate this problem. >> >> Best, austin >> >> Ely Greenfield wrote: >> >>> Austin et. al. – >>> >>> There are a number of features of MXML that simply can't be >>> replicated >>> at runtime. Things like script blocks. Other features would be >>> prohibitively difficult (arbitrary binding expressions, @Embed, >>> mx:Component, among others). You could reduce MXML to a >>> runtime-parsable subset, and I know various people have taken >>> various >>> approaches to this. The more you reduce it, the easier it would >>> be to >>> replicate…removing repeaters, implicit arrays, default properties, >>> etc. would get you down to something that could be implemented in a >>> reasonable amount of time. >>> >>> I'm curious…how many people would find runtime MXML to be >>> important to >>> them? >>> >>> Ely. >>> >>> *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> *On Behalf Of *Doug McCune >>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:47 PM >>> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Flex cookbook article: Flex2 XML Reader >>> Can Create UIComponents >>> >>> Yeah, ummm, my advice would be ignore that article. That's one of >>> the >>> effects of having an article submission process that allows >>> anyone to >>> submit anything. I know the cookbook is supposed to be user >>> generated >>> and reviewed, but anyone from Adobe want to exercise a little >>> editorial control? I wouldn't mind the hand of god going in there >>> and >>> selectively removing a little content... sometimes democracy needs a >>> helping hand. >>> >>> On 5/17/07, *Daniel Freiman* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> I think they're just stating that the mx.modules package exists. The >>> sentence "We also know Flex2 knows how to read MXML at runtime >>> because >>> the compiler knows how to convert MXML into GUI Objects" doesn't >>> inspire confidence that they know what they're talking about. Since >>> it's possible that they don't know what a compiler does, it's also >>> possible they're just writing and compiling Modules and don't >>> understand that they're doing it. Then again, that wouldn't explain >>> what they're fighting with another company about earlier in the >>> article. >>> >>> They claim what they're talking about is in the docs so I'd either >>> search them or not worry about it. My guess is you'd be searching a >>> long time for something that isn't there. It would be nice if >>> someone >>> could prove my guess wrong though. >>> >>> Dan Freiman >>> nondocs <http://nondocs.blogspot.com> >>> >>> On 5/17/07, *Austin Kottke* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There is an intriguing article in the flex cookbook on the adobe >>> site >>> about >>> reading in MXML at runtime and using the XML object to create >>> components >>> at runtime. While >>> I don't totally get how this works as there are no code samples, but >>> very vague actually, but it states: >>> >>> "Let's consider, for a moment, how Adobe might have chosen to >>> leverage >>> reuse within the Flex2 programming model. >>> >>> "Assuming the Adobe engineers did not want to have to recreate >>> the wheel >>> in terms of how to make Flex2 able to load normal non-GUI XML I >>> would >>> surmise they chose to simply reuse whatever code they wrote that was >>> able to read MXML into a way to read XML. >>> >>> "As we know, MXML resembles XML rather closely. Heck, MXML is XML ! >>> Yipee, now I can easily read MXML because it is essentially a >>> form of XML. >>> >>> "We also know Flex2 knows how to read MXML at runtime because the >>> compiler knows how to convert MXML into GUI Objects. >>> >>> "But what if we could trick Flex2 into dynamically loading MXML at >>> runtime ?" >>> >>> >>> So my question, has anyone ever done this and how did they do it? >>> I'm >>> not talking about using the >>> modules package to load in precompiled swfs. But loading in mxml and >>> having it run after being loaded. >>> >>> Best, Austin >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Flexcoders Mailing List >>> FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/ >>> flexcodersFAQ.txt >>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt> >>> Search Archives: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com >>> <http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> (Yahoo! ID required) >>> >>> mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- > 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 > > > -- 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
-- ---------------------------- Igor Costa www.igorcosta.org www.igorcosta.com skype: igorpcosta
