Mike: Good question, but SharedObject's are the way to go. It seems you are aware of efficient SharedObject design. If your data is chatty, you should design your slots to hold only the information necessary for the functionality you desire. In terms of x, y coordinates, you should have a slot that holds only coordinate information. An inefficient SharedObject design would hold an entire User object which has account information, coordinate information, etc.. With this design, anytime you update the x or y coordinate, the entire User Object would be sent to all clients.
That said, your probably still wondering about whether SharedObject sync is the most efficient way. I believe the answer is yes. Here is my reason why: RTMP is a protocol which basically consists of a header and amf data, therefore an "invoke" is represented by a hex number and so is a "sync". With that in mind, your only efficiency concerns are between the Red5 framework and your application code. - So, a sharedObject is sent to the framework and the framework handles sending it back to all the clients. - An invoke would be sent to the framework, which would then be sent to your application code, which would then be sent back to the framework and then down to the client. Now, if you were talking about using the SharedObject.send method, you may not need to bubble up to your application code, but your still being sent to all the clients. That being said, you should just use the sharedObjects sync functionality anyway. Last, I would like to say that I think all these functions probably behave almost identical in efficiency. I don't think you will find that much difference in performance. The only thing that can really be in-efficient is a poorly designed sharedObject. Hope this helps a little! On 8/27/07, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for all of the great replies. > However... > > My question is not really about the logic. > My question is about efficiency. > > Is it actually more efficient to use Shared Objects in this case. > For example, I know Shared Objects can be inefficient if they are larger > because the entire object is sent when any property of the object is > updated. > > Any input on this? > -Mike > > Lenny Sorey wrote: > > I would have to agree with Storm on this issue of Shared Objects. > > I also would use Shared Objects. > > Lenny > > > On 8/27/07, Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'd use shared objects for that if you ask me. > > > > Cheers > > On 8/25/07, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > Is it more efficient to use SharedObjects for everything, or to use > > > inokes on clients? > > > > > > For example, let's say I have a game with 20 users connected. > > > Each user is updating their character's position in the game. > > > > > > Is SharedObject the way to go, or should I loop through every client > > > and > > > perform an invoke when updates are made? > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Red5 mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > If a man speaks in a forest and his wife is not there, is he still > > wrong? > > _______________________________________________ > > Red5 mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Red5 mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED]://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Red5 mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org > > -- Dominick Accattato, CTO Infrared5 Inc. www.newviewnetworks.com
_______________________________________________ Red5 mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
