On 9/21/06 19:57, "josh zeidner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They claim that using HTTP streaming effects the
> quality of the video in some way. Have you
> experienced this? I know that Adobe would have some
> serious problems by introducing incompatibilities at
> that level.
I'm not what you mean with "streaming effects". Flash Media Server (FMS) is
a robust platform and supports real streaming (i.e. on-the-fly client
bandwidth negotiation, pre-caching, no saving..etc) as opposed to basic
progressive download. So there are advantages to using FMS over basic HTTP
GET. But even FMS falls apart at some point (>1000 connections) simply for
network reasons so it is not going to solve enterprise needs. Adobe doesn't
have a product for multicast or multicast management.
But if you needs are modest (and your pocket book is deep) then Adobe make
it brain dead simple to create content for FMS and FMS can do the multi-bit
conversions. They have an encoder and a well defined workflow so creating
content and publishing it is simple.
On the other hand their current encoder, ON2 VP6, is not as stellar as H.264
(QT) or Windows Media 9/10.
One of the things included in Flash/FMS that you won't find off-the-shelf
with other platforms is again the ability of the client to (realtime) upload
audio and video to the server which can be recorded and/or shared with other
clients; collaborative (i.e. chat, webcasts, jug meetings). This is
probably the most compelling reason for FMS. Anyone who has tried this with
JMF or OTJ knows the pain.
> Is there any way to exploit the capabilities of
> RTMP/AMF without an Adobe server-side product? Are
> there any easy ways use this protocol with server-side
> java?
At the moment there exists a well supported open source OpenAMF Java port.
This allows you to support AMF (1-3) to/from the Flash client. This
basically substitutes Flash Communication Server. It has also given rise to
AJAF, another AJAX derivative which uses AMF as the transport protocol.
This in conjunction with a port server solves the problem of AJAX Comet
allowing for true server<->client communication:
OpenAMF <-> Flash client <-> Javascript
Downside here is the time-to-talk between Flash client and the browser's
Javascript which is so great (>1000ms) that many people prefer Comet
polling.
Red5 is now at 0.6 and already offers a subset of FMS capabilty.
> I doubt that Flex will offer too many choices at the
> client level for anything but Flash. To me that is
> the clear advantage of Laszlo, as it is a technology
> clearly independent of Flash or Adobe. I feel though,
> that Flash is really going to dominate technology at
> this level and all the different AJAX flavors will
> play second fiddle to Flash apps. Some announcements
> suggest that Google shares this view. Microsoft is
> going to get squeezed because they have no opportunity
> to replace Flash at the browser level, and may make
> the mistake of trying to enter this market due to
> their poor internal organization. My primary concern
> is that Laszlo will be blown out of the water by
> Adobe. Laszlo clearly runs the risk of having its
> life support cut off, as it relies heavily on the
> publication efforts of Adobe Inc. I would sooner use
> Laszlo if I had some insurance that it would survive
> in the long term.
I would never stand on a Laszlo leg alone even if it does seem to be gaining
traction. Remember that the number of Flex developers is still far less
than the number of Flash developers. Everything you can do in Flex you can
do in Flash at least I am not aware of any Flex functionality that is not
provided for in Flash. Flash on the other hand has much more support for
things like component development. Only when you get to Breeze level of
service does Flex become a requirement (I think). Flex basically provides a
convenient means for the professional programmer to access a robust view
technology. Because it is server side it also means Flex can leverage
server side resources (i.e. JDBC, JNDI, and container resources).
Also remember that Flash doesn't mean an all or nothing proposition. You
don't need to completely substitute your HTML page with Flash. 99% of the
time Flash components are embedded alongside other HTML elements so you can
have a slick Flash graph which animates over time next to the HTML text
minutes of your last sales meeting(what Flex was about all along).
As to the future of AJAX vs Flash I disagree. I think there is a great deal
of ground swell behind AJAX and as more AJAX developers (like Google)
provide interactive applications and public APIs to access them more people
will create sites that use them. You can't say the same about AMF. Adobe
will be smart if they continue to support these APIs.
What I do find at issue is the stranglehold Adobe has begun to put on the
SWF format. SWF is the Flash file format and until v.7 was as advertised
very open source (i.e. you had free access to the file format
specification). The new license (v.8) places new restrictions on what the
file format specification can be used to program. So now my Java Flash
compiler falls into violation of the new license and cannot be upgraded to
v.8 w/o substantial effort/resources ....
'nuf for now
Steven
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
