I can take some guesses based on other swf experience, though I haven't used them yet, so they'd be worth testing.
If you attach a resource to a view it's probably compiled into the swf, making the initial swf size larger, but then if the swf is fully loaded it would be available to play instantaneously when needed.
If you stream the mp3 it should be easier on the memory, but timing would be less reliable as it has to buffer. For example, one problem with flash video streaming which we've almost certainly inherited here is that if you had two video clips on a server and you wanted to use two video views to overlay on top of one another so you could create a transition from one to the other(creating a virtual video editor), you could monitor the first video so you know when to start the second but then if you were tell the second video to play while fading from one video view to another, the ammount of time before the second video were to play would depend on the buffer amount and bandwidth, not based on time, so you can't preload it and pause it in order to control the precise moment for the second video to start playing.
So you'd use the first for mouse clicks (and other very important fancy swooshy sound effects) where precise timing is important and you'd use the second for an mp3 or video player where the size of the file and memory efficiency becomes important.
HTH (and that it's correct)
On 11/9/06, John Sundman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
A question about media and the difference between <view> and
<videoview>:
You can attach .mp3's as resources to <view>s
You can stream .mp3's over <mediastream>s to <videoview>s.
What's the difference? Why would I choose one technique over the other?
Thanks,
jrs
