Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Tom Chiverton]

On Thursday 18 Dec 2008, Fotis Chatzinikos wrote:
> Hi, I think I read somewhere that the framework will cache per domain. Ie
> if siteX uses the framework and it is cached it is only cached for siteX,
> not siteY...

That's not true, if you are talking about the signed Flex framework RSLs.
If someone has ever seen a Flex app. that used the same version of the signed 
RSL, it wont need to be refetched for your app. That's rather the point.
-- 
Tom Chiverton
Helping to revolutionarily exploit convergence



This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.

Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and 
Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at 
Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB.  A list 
of members is available for inspection at the registered office together with a 
list of those non members who are referred to as partners.  We use the word 
?partner? to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with 
equivalent standing and qualifications. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation 
Authority.

CONFIDENTIALITY

This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be 
confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not 
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform 
any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or 
contents.  If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify 
Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.

For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

RE: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Alex Harui]

Yes, that is correct.  You are tied to the bits you built against.  New 
versions do not supercede as it could result in various errors or visual 
differences

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Fotis Chatzinikos
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:52 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF 
file sizes are too big...


Ok, just to make it 100% clear if 3.2 is cached and mine is 3.0 you say that 
3.0 will be downloaded even 3.2 is there?
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Alex Harui 
mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> wrote:

Crossdomain RSLs are per public release.  There is a separate RSL for 3.0, 3.1 
and 3.2 and will be for any other release we "publish".  Your code will be 
specifically looking for the version it was built against and if it isn't 
there, the RSL will be downloaded.



From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>] On 
Behalf Of Fotis Chatzinikos
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:47 PM

To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF 
file sizes are too big...



Thanks Alex, the following makes much sense!:

>>Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework is 
>>specially signed and loaded into a >>special cache and used for all domains.  
>>Normally RSLs are per-domain.

Any ideas on the version of the rsl? Ie if i am using v xxx.2 and xxx.3 is 
cached (later/newer) will it be ok or it will need to download my older version 
rsl?

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> wrote:

Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework is 
specially signed and loaded into a special cache and used for all domains.  
Normally RSLs are per-domain.



Flex is a framework.  Most frameworks focus on making development easier by 
letting the developer set a flag and get different behavior.  By definition, 
that means there is a lot of code there just in case you need it, so that means 
that you'll always be able to write a smaller app by doing it yourself and not 
carrying any "just-in-case" code you know you don't need.



FWIW, because some members of my extended family and friends are still on 
dialup, I still publish content they will be looking at w/o using Flex.  Takes 
a bit longer, but it is pretty simple content and size and compatibility with 
older players is more important.





From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>] On 
Behalf Of Ralf Bokelberg
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF 
file sizes are too big...



Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is
really more about enterprise development process, less about
technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your
500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably.

Ralf.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan 
mailto:ultraky%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like saying
> 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our
> Flash app?' Unless you
>
> Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly
> released in June 2006. Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that Flex
> is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me.
> It's all Flash and soon Flex will have a new name so.
>
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
>
> This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
> newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
> to have more interactive widgets in the future.
>
>



--
Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
Founder,
Phinnovation
fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com<mailto:fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com>,



--
Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
Founder,
Phinnovation
fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com<mailto:fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com>,

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Fotis Chatzinikos]

Ok, just to make it 100% clear if 3.2 is cached and mine is 3.0 you say that
3.0 will be downloaded even 3.2 is there?

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:

>Crossdomain RSLs are per public release.  There is a separate RSL for
> 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 and will be for any other release we "publish".  Your code
> will be specifically looking for the version it was built against and if it
> isn't there, the RSL will be downloaded.
>
>
>
> *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Fotis Chatzinikos
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:47 PM
>
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets?
> SWF file sizes are too big...
>
>
>
> Thanks Alex, the following makes much sense!:
>
> >>Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework
> is specially signed and loaded into a >>special cache and used for all
> domains.  Normally RSLs are per-domain.
>
> Any ideas on the version of the rsl? Ie if i am using v xxx.2 and xxx.3 is
> cached (later/newer) will it be ok or it will need to download my older
> version rsl?
>
>  On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:
>
> Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework is
> specially signed and loaded into a special cache and used for all domains.
> Normally RSLs are per-domain.
>
>
>
> Flex is a framework.  Most frameworks focus on making development easier by
> letting the developer set a flag and get different behavior.  By definition,
> that means there is a lot of code there just in case you need it, so that
> means that you'll always be able to write a smaller app by doing it yourself
> and not carrying any "just-in-case" code you know you don't need.
>
>
>
> FWIW, because some members of my extended family and friends are still on
> dialup, I still publish content they will be looking at w/o using Flex.
> Takes a bit longer, but it is pretty simple content and size and
> compatibility with older players is more important.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Ralf Bokelberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets?
> SWF file sizes are too big...
>
>
>
> Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is
> really more about enterprise development process, less about
> technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your
> 500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably.
>
> Ralf.
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan 
> >
> wrote:
> > It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like
> saying
> > 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our
> > Flash app?' Unless you
> >
> > Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly
> > released in June 2006. Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that
> Flex
> > is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me.
> > It's all Flash and soon Flex will have a new name so.
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> >
> > This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
> > newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
> > to have more interactive widgets in the future.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
> Founder,
> Phinnovation
> fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com,
>
>   
>



-- 
Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
Founder,
Phinnovation
fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com,

RE: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Alex Harui]

Crossdomain RSLs are per public release.  There is a separate RSL for 3.0, 3.1 
and 3.2 and will be for any other release we "publish".  Your code will be 
specifically looking for the version it was built against and if it isn't 
there, the RSL will be downloaded.

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Fotis Chatzinikos
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:47 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF 
file sizes are too big...


Thanks Alex, the following makes much sense!:

>>Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework is 
>>specially signed and loaded into a >>special cache and used for all domains.  
>>Normally RSLs are per-domain.

Any ideas on the version of the rsl? Ie if i am using v xxx.2 and xxx.3 is 
cached (later/newer) will it be ok or it will need to download my older version 
rsl?

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui 
mailto:aha...@adobe.com>> wrote:

Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework is 
specially signed and loaded into a special cache and used for all domains.  
Normally RSLs are per-domain.



Flex is a framework.  Most frameworks focus on making development easier by 
letting the developer set a flag and get different behavior.  By definition, 
that means there is a lot of code there just in case you need it, so that means 
that you'll always be able to write a smaller app by doing it yourself and not 
carrying any "just-in-case" code you know you don't need.



FWIW, because some members of my extended family and friends are still on 
dialup, I still publish content they will be looking at w/o using Flex.  Takes 
a bit longer, but it is pretty simple content and size and compatibility with 
older players is more important.





From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>] On 
Behalf Of Ralf Bokelberg
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF 
file sizes are too big...



Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is
really more about enterprise development process, less about
technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your
500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably.

Ralf.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan 
mailto:ultraky%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like saying
> 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our
> Flash app?' Unless you
>
> Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly
> released in June 2006. Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that Flex
> is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me.
> It's all Flash and soon Flex will have a new name so.
>
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
>
> This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
> newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
> to have more interactive widgets in the future.
>
>



--
Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
Founder,
Phinnovation
fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com<mailto:fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com>,

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Fotis Chatzinikos]

Thanks Alex, the following makes much sense!:

>>Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework
is specially signed and loaded into a >>special cache and used for all
domains.  Normally RSLs are per-domain.

Any ideas on the version of the rsl? Ie if i am using v xxx.2 and xxx.3 is
cached (later/newer) will it be ok or it will need to download my older
version rsl?


On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Alex Harui  wrote:

>Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The
> framework is specially signed and loaded into a special cache and used for
> all domains.  Normally RSLs are per-domain.
>
>
>
> Flex is a framework.  Most frameworks focus on making development easier by
> letting the developer set a flag and get different behavior.  By definition,
> that means there is a lot of code there just in case you need it, so that
> means that you'll always be able to write a smaller app by doing it yourself
> and not carrying any "just-in-case" code you know you don't need.
>
>
>
> FWIW, because some members of my extended family and friends are still on
> dialup, I still publish content they will be looking at w/o using Flex.
> Takes a bit longer, but it is pretty simple content and size and
> compatibility with older players is more important.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Ralf Bokelberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM
> *To:* flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets?
> SWF file sizes are too big...
>
>
>
> Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is
> really more about enterprise development process, less about
> technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your
> 500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably.
>
> Ralf.
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan 
> >
> wrote:
> > It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like
> saying
> > 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our
> > Flash app?' Unless you
> >
> > Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly
> > released in June 2006. Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that
> Flex
> > is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me.
> > It's all Flash and soon Flex will have a new name so.
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> >
> > This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
> > newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
> > to have more interactive widgets in the future.
> >
> >
>
>   
>



-- 
Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
Founder,
Phinnovation
fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com,

RE: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Alex Harui]

Later builds of FP9 and FP10 support crossdomain caching.  The framework is 
specially signed and loaded into a special cache and used for all domains.  
Normally RSLs are per-domain.

Flex is a framework.  Most frameworks focus on making development easier by 
letting the developer set a flag and get different behavior.  By definition, 
that means there is a lot of code there just in case you need it, so that means 
that you'll always be able to write a smaller app by doing it yourself and not 
carrying any "just-in-case" code you know you don't need.

FWIW, because some members of my extended family and friends are still on 
dialup, I still publish content they will be looking at w/o using Flex.  Takes 
a bit longer, but it is pretty simple content and size and compatibility with 
older players is more important.


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Ralf Bokelberg
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:16 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF 
file sizes are too big...


Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is
really more about enterprise development process, less about
technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your
500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably.

Ralf.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan 
mailto:ultraky%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex. It's like saying
> 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our
> Flash app?' Unless you
>
> Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago. ActionScript 3 was publicly
> released in June 2006. Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that Flex
> is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me.
> It's all Flash and soon Flex will have a new name so.
>
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
>
> This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
> newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
> to have more interactive widgets in the future.
>
>

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Ralf Bokelberg]

Flex is more interactive? This must be a misunderstanding. Flex is
really more about enterprise development process, less about
technology. And it is not concerned about size, just features. Your
500k Flex widget is 20k in Flash probably.

Ralf.


On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Alan  wrote:
> It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex.  It's like saying
> 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need Flex in our
> Flash app?'  Unless you
>
> Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago.  ActionScript 3 was publicly
> released in June 2006.  Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion that Flex
> is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me.
> It's all Flash and soon Flex will have a new name so.
>
> On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
>
> This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
> newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
> to have more interactive widgets in the future.
>
> 

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Alan]

It's all Flash, why is there any notion of Flash vs. Flex.  It's like  
saying 'Should we use PHP or Zend?'. Rather it should be 'Do we need  
Flex in our Flash app?'  Unless you


Flex as newer? Flex came out 5 years ago.  ActionScript 3 was publicly  
released in June 2006.  Although Flex is now AS3, still the notion  
that Flex is 'newer' doesn't make any sense to me.


It's all Flash and soon Flex will have a new name so.


On Dec 18, 2008, at 3:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:


This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
to have more interactive widgets in the future.

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Fotis Chatzinikos]

Hi, I think I read somewhere that the framework will cache per domain. Ie if
siteX uses the framework and it is cached it is only cached for siteX, not
siteY...

I am not sure if that is the case though, as i am using framework caching
but my application is not deployed yet and have not tested (plus size is not
a problem in my case, as i am building a fully featured flex based social
network and the complete swf is less than half a mb including embeded
images).

Can you check and let us know? Anybody else in the forum?

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM, devenhariyani wrote:

>   Tom, thank you for your feedback. yes Javascript is great, but
> Myspace, one of the most popular sites that allows widgets doesn't
> allow Javascript. This restricts us to Flash or Flex. Flex being the
> newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
> to have more interactive widgets in the future.
>
> Having said the above, I will admit, that the file size issue of the
> SWF is still almost a deal breaker in our company's efforts to use
> Flex. However, the info on using Framework caching could have been
> the saving grace that allows us to continue using Flex. Here is a
> break down of what I've learned from my little widget experiement:
>
> 1.)Before using Framework caching, or any compiler flags or Release to
> Export my widget SWF file had a size of: 577KB!
>
> 2.) After using compiler flags to optimize and looking at the link
> report (which had no big problems), the SWF file size went down to:
> 361KB...not bad, but still not small enough.
> (btw, the compiler flags I used are: -locale en_US -link-report
> matrixLinkReport -optimize=true -debug=false -strict=true)
>
> 3.) After using framework caching the SWF file size went down to:
> 121KB! This was a huge win! However, the caveat is that if the user
> has never visited a site that uses the Flex 3 framework, then an
> additional 540KB will be downloaded for the framework.
>
> I assume enough people have Flash player 9.0.115+, so I'm not worried
> about users having the ability to support framework caching. But,
> does anyone have any metrics whatsoever as to how many users might
> have visited a Flex 3 site where they would have downloaded the
> framework? Or, does anyone have any idea how many flex 3
> sites/widgets are in existence so I can tell my superiors that there
> are XXX million flex 3 sites so this gives us a very good chance that
> users have the framework cached
>
> And finally, my application is currently built against the framework:
>
> framework_3.1.0.2710.swz
> framework_3.1.0.2710.swf
>
> Does Adobe support any backward compatibility for their various
> versions of the framework? So, in the future when
> framework_3.2.xxx.swz is released...will my application be able to
> leverage that?
>
> --Deven
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com , Tom
> Chiverton 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thursday 18 Dec 2008, Manish Jethani wrote:
> > > AS3 (without Flex) isn't going to buy you much. If you call your app a
> > > "widget" though, I agree Flex is too much for that. The world needs a
> > > mini-Flex, a widget development language.
> >
> > This is called JavaScript :-)
> >
> > --
> > Tom Chiverton
> > Helping to evangelistically orchestrate market-driven front-end
> granular
> > infomediaries
> >
> > 
> >
> > This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
> >
> > Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in
> England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered
> office address is at Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields,
> Manchester, M3 3EB. A list of members is available for inspection at
> the registered office together with a list of those non members who
> are referred to as partners. We use the word ?partner? to refer to a
> member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent
> standing and qualifications. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
> Authority.
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY
> >
> > This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above
> and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the
> addressee you must not read it and must not use any information
> contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells
> LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have
> received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
> LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
> >
> > For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D.
Founder,
Phinnovation
fotis.chatzini...@gmail.com,

[flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[devenhariyani]

Tom, thank you for your feedback.  yes Javascript is great, but
Myspace, one of the most popular sites that allows widgets doesn't
allow Javascript.  This restricts us to Flash or Flex.  Flex being the
newer technology it made sense to try flex, especially for our plans
to have more interactive widgets in the future.

Having said the above, I will admit, that the file size issue of the
SWF is still almost a deal breaker in our company's efforts to use
Flex.  However, the info on using Framework caching could have been
the saving grace that allows us to continue using Flex.  Here is a
break down of what I've learned from my little widget experiement:

1.)Before using Framework caching, or any compiler flags or Release to
Export my widget SWF file had a size of: 577KB!

2.) After using compiler flags to optimize and looking at the link
report (which had no big problems), the SWF file size went down to:
361KB...not bad, but still not small enough.
(btw, the compiler flags I used are: -locale en_US -link-report
matrixLinkReport -optimize=true -debug=false -strict=true)

3.) After using framework caching the SWF file size went down to:
121KB!  This was a huge win!  However, the caveat is that if the user
has never visited a site that uses the Flex 3 framework, then an
additional 540KB will be downloaded for the framework.

I assume enough people have Flash player 9.0.115+, so I'm not worried
about users having the ability to support framework caching.  But, 
does anyone have any metrics whatsoever as to how many users might
have visited a Flex 3 site where they would have downloaded the
framework?  Or, does anyone have any idea how many flex 3
sites/widgets are in existence so I can tell my superiors that there
are XXX million flex 3 sites so this gives us a very good chance that
users have the framework cached

And finally, my application is currently built against the framework:

framework_3.1.0.2710.swz
framework_3.1.0.2710.swf

Does Adobe support any backward compatibility for their various
versions of the framework?  So, in the future when
framework_3.2.xxx.swz is released...will my application be able to
leverage that?


--Deven

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Tom Chiverton 
wrote:
>
> On Thursday 18 Dec 2008, Manish Jethani wrote:
> > AS3 (without Flex) isn't going to buy you much. If you call your app a
> > "widget" though, I agree Flex is too much for that. The world needs a
> > mini-Flex, a widget development language.
> 
> This is called JavaScript :-)
> 
> -- 
> Tom Chiverton
> Helping to evangelistically orchestrate market-driven front-end
granular 
> infomediaries
> 
> 
> 
> This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
> 
> Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in
England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered
office address is at Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields,
Manchester, M3 3EB.  A list of members is available for inspection at
the registered office together with a list of those non members who
are referred to as partners.  We use the word ?partner? to refer to a
member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent
standing and qualifications. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority.
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY
> 
> This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above
and may be confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the
addressee you must not read it and must not use any information
contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells
LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents.  If you have
received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells
LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.
> 
> For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.
>

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Tom Chiverton]

On Thursday 18 Dec 2008, Manish Jethani wrote:
> AS3 (without Flex) isn't going to buy you much. If you call your app a
> "widget" though, I agree Flex is too much for that. The world needs a
> mini-Flex, a widget development language.

This is called JavaScript :-)

-- 
Tom Chiverton
Helping to evangelistically orchestrate market-driven front-end granular 
infomediaries



This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.

Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and 
Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at 
Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB.  A list 
of members is available for inspection at the registered office together with a 
list of those non members who are referred to as partners.  We use the word 
?partner? to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with 
equivalent standing and qualifications. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation 
Authority.

CONFIDENTIALITY

This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be 
confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the addressee you must not 
read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform 
any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or 
contents.  If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify 
Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 2500.

For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com.

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Manish Jethani]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM, devenhariyani  wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps
> written completely in ActionScript 3?  I did some quick searches on
> Google, but didn't find much.

This viewer app is done in pure ActionScript 3 using the Flash Player APIs:

http://issuu.com/jesper/docs/gan_issuu?mode=embed&documentId=080311154822-183d3d8334a544518a0d5e324f2543d4&layout=grass

It's no piece of cake, let me tell you that. You end up having to
write a lot of stuff that's already taken care of by the Flex
framework. On the upside, you can make your own framework tailored to
your needs -- optimized and all.

I'd say if your app is going to be complex enough, writing it in pure
AS3 (without Flex) isn't going to buy you much. If you call your app a
"widget" though, I agree Flex is too much for that. The world needs a
mini-Flex, a widget development language.

Manish

[flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[icodeflex]

I think RSLs are the key to keeping file side down on your Flex apps.
The Flex framework is about 1.5 megs worth of code, and it only gets
bigger if youre doing charting, rpc, etc. A Flex app gets a tough hit
dragging all this supporting code into the app. 
That said though, if you reference these libraries as RSLs, you might
never take the hit with your app if another app has already used those
libraries and they are cached in your player- and your Flex app will
stay pretty small.

cheers-
Dustin

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Ralf Bokelberg"
 wrote:
>
> If you go for size, i'd use Flash. There is nothing wrong with it, as
> you are not developing a enterprise application with a big team.
> Cheers
> Ralf.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Josh McDonald  wrote:
> > I definitely agree with you Gabriel, you wouldn't catch me doing a
non-Flex
> > Flash project at all- I was under the impression the OP was *very*
concerned
> > about size, although that could just've been my (often lax)
comprehension
> > skills :)
> >
> > -Josh
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM, gabriel montagné 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> >> > Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
> >> >  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-
write the
> >> > app
> >> > to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down
to under
> >> > 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not the
right tool
> >> > for
> >> > the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
> >>
> >> I'm primarily a Flex developer and, of course it depends on what
you want
> >> to
> >> do, but I wouldn't go for a "pure AS3" project unless it was a simple
> >> banner.
> >> 200KB is too little.  A normal medium size flickr image already
weights
> >> about
> >> 100KB.
> >>
> >> Even though widgets might use little area, they are often complete
> >> websites
> >> upon themselves.  I did a facebook widget for Target not long
ago.  It was
> >> a
> >> simple widget but still it had to load data from different
sources, it had
> >> to
> >> do reporting, it had to forward requests for products, it had a
carousel
> >> with
> >> details info and additional images, etc... and of course, it had
to do the
> >> normal things that all of these flash movies have to do: it had
to load
> >> smoothly, it had instantiate it's components, it had to load and
cache
> >> stuff,
> >> it had to have embedded fonts and assets, load backgrounds, etc.
 And it
> >> had
> >> to be ready in a very short time.
> >>
> >> All these things Flex solves already for you... you can redo them and
> >> perhaps
> >> save some bandwidth, but the cost is high: you'll loose all the
> >> architecture
> >> and debugging that the Adobe engineers (not to mention the Flex
community
> >> in
> >> general) have already put into the framework, (which is made, of
course,
> >> from
> >> the very same kind of actionscript that you would have to write
yourself
> >> anyways to solve the very same problems.)
> >>
> >> I did that widget in full fledged Flex (+ Cairngorm + UM Extensions,
> >> etc.), it
> >> ended up "costing" like 350KB... and nobody complained, specially
since we
> >> could cut down one third of the initially scoped development time
and it
> >> turned out to be robust and pretty much bug free.
> >>
> >> --
> >> gabriel montagné láscaris comneno
> >> http://rojored.com
> >> t/506.8367.6794
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> --
> >> Flexcoders Mailing List
> >> FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
> >> Alternative FAQ location:
> >>
https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847
> >> Search Archives:
> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo!
Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for
thee."
> >
> > Like the cut of my jib? Check out my Flex blog!
> >
> > :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> > :: 0437 221 380 :: j...@...
> > :: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/
> > :: http://twitter.com/sophistifunk
> >
>

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Ricky Bacon]

Josh McDonald wrote:
> I definitely agree with you Gabriel, you wouldn't catch me doing a 
> non-Flex Flash project at all- I was under the impression the OP was 
> *very* concerned about size, although that could just've been my (often 
> lax) comprehension skills :)

Strictly my opinion, but I'd do widgets in AS before I'd touch any mx 
imports.

-Ricky

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Ralf Bokelberg]

If you go for size, i'd use Flash. There is nothing wrong with it, as
you are not developing a enterprise application with a big team.
Cheers
Ralf.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:50 AM, Josh McDonald  wrote:
> I definitely agree with you Gabriel, you wouldn't catch me doing a non-Flex
> Flash project at all- I was under the impression the OP was *very* concerned
> about size, although that could just've been my (often lax) comprehension
> skills :)
>
> -Josh
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM, gabriel montagné 
> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
>> > Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
>> >  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re- write the
>> > app
>> > to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down to under
>> > 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not the right tool
>> > for
>> > the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
>>
>> I'm primarily a Flex developer and, of course it depends on what you want
>> to
>> do, but I wouldn't go for a "pure AS3" project unless it was a simple
>> banner.
>> 200KB is too little.  A normal medium size flickr image already weights
>> about
>> 100KB.
>>
>> Even though widgets might use little area, they are often complete
>> websites
>> upon themselves.  I did a facebook widget for Target not long ago.  It was
>> a
>> simple widget but still it had to load data from different sources, it had
>> to
>> do reporting, it had to forward requests for products, it had a carousel
>> with
>> details info and additional images, etc... and of course, it had to do the
>> normal things that all of these flash movies have to do: it had to load
>> smoothly, it had instantiate it's components, it had to load and cache
>> stuff,
>> it had to have embedded fonts and assets, load backgrounds, etc.  And it
>> had
>> to be ready in a very short time.
>>
>> All these things Flex solves already for you... you can redo them and
>> perhaps
>> save some bandwidth, but the cost is high: you'll loose all the
>> architecture
>> and debugging that the Adobe engineers (not to mention the Flex community
>> in
>> general) have already put into the framework, (which is made, of course,
>> from
>> the very same kind of actionscript that you would have to write yourself
>> anyways to solve the very same problems.)
>>
>> I did that widget in full fledged Flex (+ Cairngorm + UM Extensions,
>> etc.), it
>> ended up "costing" like 350KB... and nobody complained, specially since we
>> could cut down one third of the initially scoped development time and it
>> turned out to be robust and pretty much bug free.
>>
>> --
>> gabriel montagné láscaris comneno
>> http://rojored.com
>> t/506.8367.6794
>>
>> 
>>
>> --
>> Flexcoders Mailing List
>> FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
>> Alternative FAQ location:
>> https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847
>> Search Archives:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
>
> Like the cut of my jib? Check out my Flex blog!
>
> :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> :: 0437 221 380 :: j...@gfunk007.com
> :: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/
> :: http://twitter.com/sophistifunk
> 

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Josh McDonald]

I definitely agree with you Gabriel, you wouldn't catch me doing a non-Flex
Flash project at all- I was under the impression the OP was *very* concerned
about size, although that could just've been my (often lax) comprehension
skills :)

-Josh

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM, gabriel montagné wrote:

> >> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> > Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
> >  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re- write the
> app
> > to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down to under
> > 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not the right tool
> for
> > the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
>
> I'm primarily a Flex developer and, of course it depends on what you want
> to
> do, but I wouldn't go for a "pure AS3" project unless it was a simple
> banner.
> 200KB is too little.  A normal medium size flickr image already weights
> about
> 100KB.
>
> Even though widgets might use little area, they are often complete websites
> upon themselves.  I did a facebook widget for Target not long ago.  It was
> a
> simple widget but still it had to load data from different sources, it had
> to
> do reporting, it had to forward requests for products, it had a carousel
> with
> details info and additional images, etc... and of course, it had to do the
> normal things that all of these flash movies have to do: it had to load
> smoothly, it had instantiate it's components, it had to load and cache
> stuff,
> it had to have embedded fonts and assets, load backgrounds, etc.  And it
> had
> to be ready in a very short time.
>
> All these things Flex solves already for you... you can redo them and
> perhaps
> save some bandwidth, but the cost is high: you'll loose all the
> architecture
> and debugging that the Adobe engineers (not to mention the Flex community
> in
> general) have already put into the framework, (which is made, of course,
> from
> the very same kind of actionscript that you would have to write yourself
> anyways to solve the very same problems.)
>
> I did that widget in full fledged Flex (+ Cairngorm + UM Extensions, etc.),
> it
> ended up "costing" like 350KB... and nobody complained, specially since we
> could cut down one third of the initially scoped development time and it
> turned out to be robust and pretty much bug free.
>
> --
> gabriel montagné láscaris comneno
> http://rojored.com
> t/506.8367.6794
>
> 
>
> --
> Flexcoders Mailing List
> FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
> Alternative FAQ location:
> https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847
> Search Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
> Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
"Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

Like the cut of my jib? Check out my Flex blog!

:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: j...@gfunk007.com
:: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/
:: http://twitter.com/sophistifunk

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[gabriel montagné]

>> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
>  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re- write the app
> to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down to under
> 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not the right tool for
> the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.

I'm primarily a Flex developer and, of course it depends on what you want to
do, but I wouldn't go for a "pure AS3" project unless it was a simple banner.
200KB is too little.  A normal medium size flickr image already weights about
100KB.

Even though widgets might use little area, they are often complete websites
upon themselves.  I did a facebook widget for Target not long ago.  It was a
simple widget but still it had to load data from different sources, it had to
do reporting, it had to forward requests for products, it had a carousel with
details info and additional images, etc... and of course, it had to do the
normal things that all of these flash movies have to do: it had to load
smoothly, it had instantiate it's components, it had to load and cache stuff,
it had to have embedded fonts and assets, load backgrounds, etc.  And it had
to be ready in a very short time.

All these things Flex solves already for you... you can redo them and perhaps
save some bandwidth, but the cost is high: you'll loose all the architecture
and debugging that the Adobe engineers (not to mention the Flex community in
general) have already put into the framework, (which is made, of course, from
the very same kind of actionscript that you would have to write yourself
anyways to solve the very same problems.)

I did that widget in full fledged Flex (+ Cairngorm + UM Extensions, etc.), it
ended up "costing" like 350KB... and nobody complained, specially since we
could cut down one third of the initially scoped development time and it
turned out to be robust and pretty much bug free.

-- 
gabriel montagné láscaris comneno
http://rojored.com
t/506.8367.6794

RE: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Gordon Smith]

And rather than using Label, just use a TextField (or possibly FTE).

To make a non-Flex project in Flex Builder, just choose File > New > 
ActionScript Project. As your first step, in the constructor try code like this:

var textField:TextField = new TextField();
textField.text = "Hello";
addChild(textField);

Gordon Smith
Adobe Flex SDK Team

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Alex Harui
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:15 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF 
file sizes are too big...

Under the covers, MXML is converted to actionscript.  The only way to get 
smaller is to start removing features from the framework.  If you need 
collections or HTTPService or styles or resources or any of that infrastructure 
"someday" you'll end up with a sizable app even if you do it in AS.  So, 
consider what you can live without not just for today, but going forward.  Can 
you live with just Array because you don't need data update notifications?  Do 
you really need HTTPService or can you just use URLLoader?

Using the framework cache will drop the size of your swf considerably.  I think 
helloworld is about 45K when using the framework cache.

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of devenhariyani
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:57 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file 
sizes are too big...


Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps
written completely in ActionScript 3? I did some quick searches on
Google, but didn't find much.

I would rather try to re-write the app in AS3 to see if it makes the
file size manageable, rather than abandon flex completely.

Thanks again, all of you have been very helpful.

--Deven

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, Alan 
 wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call this 'simple' but I do think your doubts are well
> founded. Looking at this example, I don't see any real use of
Flex.
> You have what looks like some animated state changes and a few
> navigation components - skipping Flex in this case might be easier.
>
> I do small and large scale Flash dev, sometimes widgets, sometimes
> database crunching translation tools. I only use Flex when I am
> manipulating lots of data records.
>
> BTW gang, don't forget, t's all ActionScript ;)
>
> Alan
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use
the
> >  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-
write
> > the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size
down
> > to under 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not
> > the right tool for the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
>

RE: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Alex Harui]

Under the covers, MXML is converted to actionscript.  The only way to get 
smaller is to start removing features from the framework.  If you need 
collections or HTTPService or styles or resources or any of that infrastructure 
"someday" you'll end up with a sizable app even if you do it in AS.  So, 
consider what you can live without not just for today, but going forward.  Can 
you live with just Array because you don't need data update notifications?  Do 
you really need HTTPService or can you just use URLLoader?

Using the framework cache will drop the size of your swf considerably.  I think 
helloworld is about 45K when using the framework cache.

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of devenhariyani
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:57 PM
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file 
sizes are too big...


Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps
written completely in ActionScript 3? I did some quick searches on
Google, but didn't find much.

I would rather try to re-write the app in AS3 to see if it makes the
file size manageable, rather than abandon flex completely.

Thanks again, all of you have been very helpful.

--Deven

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com<mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, Alan 
 wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call this 'simple' but I do think your doubts are well
> founded. Looking at this example, I don't see any real use of
Flex.
> You have what looks like some animated state changes and a few
> navigation components - skipping Flex in this case might be easier.
>
> I do small and large scale Flash dev, sometimes widgets, sometimes
> database crunching translation tools. I only use Flex when I am
> manipulating lots of data records.
>
> BTW gang, don't forget, t's all ActionScript ;)
>
> Alan
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use
the
> >  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-
write
> > the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size
down
> > to under 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not
> > the right tool for the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
>

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Josh McDonald]

What I meant is that you don't seem to be using any Flex functionality
beside ArrayCollection, and you'd do fine using Array or Vector.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:56 PM, devenhariyani wrote:

> Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps
> written completely in ActionScript 3?  I did some quick searches on
> Google, but didn't find much.
>
> I would rather try to re-write the app in AS3 to see if it makes the
> file size manageable, rather than abandon flex completely.
>
> Thanks again, all of you have been very helpful.
>
> --Deven
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Alan  wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't call this 'simple' but I do think your doubts are well
> > founded.  Looking at this example, I don't see any real use of
> Flex.
> > You have what looks like some animated state changes and a few
> > navigation components -  skipping Flex in this case might be easier.
> >
> > I do small and large scale Flash dev, sometimes widgets, sometimes
> > database crunching translation tools.  I only use Flex when I am
> > manipulating lots of data records.
> >
> > BTW gang, don't forget, t's all ActionScript ;)
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use
> the
> > >  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-
> write
> > > the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size
> down
> > > to under 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not
> > > the right tool for the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
> >
>
>
>
> 
>
> --
> Flexcoders Mailing List
> FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
> Alternative FAQ location:
> https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847
> Search Archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups
> Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
"Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

Like the cut of my jib? Check out my Flex blog!

:: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
:: 0437 221 380 :: j...@gfunk007.com
:: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/
:: http://twitter.com/sophistifunk

[flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[devenhariyani]

Does anyone know where I can find some good examples of flex apps 
written completely in ActionScript 3?  I did some quick searches on 
Google, but didn't find much.

I would rather try to re-write the app in AS3 to see if it makes the 
file size manageable, rather than abandon flex completely.

Thanks again, all of you have been very helpful.

--Deven

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Alan  wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call this 'simple' but I do think your doubts are well  
> founded.  Looking at this example, I don't see any real use of 
Flex.   
> You have what looks like some animated state changes and a few  
> navigation components -  skipping Flex in this case might be easier.
> 
> I do small and large scale Flash dev, sometimes widgets, sometimes  
> database crunching translation tools.  I only use Flex when I am  
> manipulating lots of data records.
> 
> BTW gang, don't forget, t's all ActionScript ;)
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use 
the
> >  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-
write
> > the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size 
down
> > to under 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not
> > the right tool for the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
>

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Alan]

I wouldn't call this 'simple' but I do think your doubts are well  
founded.  Looking at this example, I don't see any real use of Flex.   
You have what looks like some animated state changes and a few  
navigation components -  skipping Flex in this case might be easier.


I do small and large scale Flash dev, sometimes widgets, sometimes  
database crunching translation tools.  I only use Flex when I am  
manipulating lots of data records.


BTW gang, don't forget, t's all ActionScript ;)

Alan


On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:


Thanks for the advice so far. If I follow the advice not to use the
 tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-write
the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down
to under 200KB? I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not
the right tool for the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[Josh McDonald]

To be honest with a widget that simple, if you're worried about size just
build it in ActionScript.

-Josh

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM, devenhariyani wrote:

> Thanks for the advice so far.  If I follow the advice not to use the
>  tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-write
> the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down
> to under 200KB?  I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not
> the right tool for the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.
>
> Here's a description:
> My widget is not very complicated, it basically does an HttpService
> request to pull some data, then it puts that data into an
> ArrayCollection.  Then there is a timer object that fires every
> second, and when the timer fires it takes one element from the array
> collection, creates a Label and moves it across the canvas screen.
>
> Here's a url for the demo:
>
> http://pine.experienceproject.com/platform_test/widgets/live_cs_widget
> .html
>
> BR,
> deven
>
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Josh McDonald"  wrote:
> >
> > Depending on what parts of the framework you use, you could
> probably cut it
> > right down by not using an Application as the "root", and instead
> using a
> > custom UIComponent that implements IContainer (some methods might
> be stubs,
> > etc). Container has a *lot* of stuff in it. You should be able to
> lookup how
> > to do this with google, and (IIRC) there's a lot of comments that
> will help
> > in the source for ISystemManager and the implementing classes.
> >
> > -Josh
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Jamie S  wrote:
> >
> > > It would be pretty hard to get a Flex app down under 100k. The
> > > Framework itself is larger than that. You could try framework
> caching.
> > >
> > > But if you really want a small file size, you might have to use
> Flash.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM, devenhariyani 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hey guys,
> > > >
> > > > I recently posted a thread on a popular widget platform site to
> get
> > > > developer feedback. Basically, I've created a widget using Flex
> > > > technology, and since I cannot get the SWF file size down to a
> size <
> > > > 100KB I'm wondering if Flex was the wrong technology for my
> project.
> > > > I'm not very familiar with Flash, so I don't know how small I
> could
> > > > get the file size for a comparable solution in Flash. Below is
> the
> > > > original thread.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > I've created a widget using Adobe's Flex technology which has a
> SWF
> > > > file size of approx. 350KB. I've optimized the widget using all
> the
> > > > techniques I could find such as: compiler flags, not embedding
> assets
> > > > into the SWF, dynamic loading of modules, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming 350KB is the smallest I can get my SWF file, is this
> still
> > > > too big to distribute as a widget?
> > > >
> > > > Here are two distribution strategies we are looking at:
> > > >
> > > > 1.) Put the widget on a majority of the pages on our website so
> when
> > > > users come to our website they will see the widget and download
> it.
> > > > This will be great for distribution, but currently, our website
> gets
> > > > a good deal of traffic (Alexa top 10,000 ranking website). And,
> all
> > > > of the pages on our website are around 60-150KB, and there is a
> lot
> > > > of worry that a 350KB widget will weigh down the page too much
> and
> > > > make it very slow when loading. There is also concern that
> adding an
> > > > additional 350KB will greatly impact our bandwidth costs since
> many
> > > > users will hit these pages.
> > > >
> > > > 2.) Create a "widget gallery" on our website where our users
> can go
> > > > to grab the widget and put it on their MySpace, Facebook, etc.
> This
> > > > will keep the rest of the pages on our website light and fast,
> but
> > > > the distribution of the widget will get severely impacted.
> > > >
> > > > I want to know what other developers are doing in similar
> situations.
> > > >
> > > > Is Flex the wrong technology for creating widgets? What are
> some avg
> > > > size SWF files that other widget developers are creating? If a
> 150KB
> > > > page has an additional 350KB flex widget, is it going to greatly
> > > > impact the loading time?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance for your advice!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > --
> > > Flexcoders Mailing List
> > > FAQ:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
> > > Alternative FAQ location:
> > > https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-
> 446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847
> > > Search Archives:
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo!
> Groups
> > > Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[flexcoders] Re: Is Flex the wrong technology for widgets? SWF file sizes are too big...

[devenhariyani]

Thanks for the advice so far.  If I follow the advice not to use the 
 tag, *and* if I also remove all the MXML and re-write 
the app to use only ActionScript do you think I can get the size down 
to under 200KB?  I think Flex is a great technology, but if its not 
the right tool for the job I will sadly have to go to Flash.

Here's a description:
My widget is not very complicated, it basically does an HttpService 
request to pull some data, then it puts that data into an 
ArrayCollection.  Then there is a timer object that fires every 
second, and when the timer fires it takes one element from the array 
collection, creates a Label and moves it across the canvas screen.

Here's a url for the demo:

http://pine.experienceproject.com/platform_test/widgets/live_cs_widget
.html

BR,
deven


--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Josh McDonald"  wrote:
>
> Depending on what parts of the framework you use, you could 
probably cut it
> right down by not using an Application as the "root", and instead 
using a
> custom UIComponent that implements IContainer (some methods might 
be stubs,
> etc). Container has a *lot* of stuff in it. You should be able to 
lookup how
> to do this with google, and (IIRC) there's a lot of comments that 
will help
> in the source for ISystemManager and the implementing classes.
> 
> -Josh
> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Jamie S  wrote:
> 
> > It would be pretty hard to get a Flex app down under 100k. The
> > Framework itself is larger than that. You could try framework 
caching.
> >
> > But if you really want a small file size, you might have to use 
Flash.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 5:10 PM, devenhariyani 
> > wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > I recently posted a thread on a popular widget platform site to 
get
> > > developer feedback. Basically, I've created a widget using Flex
> > > technology, and since I cannot get the SWF file size down to a 
size <
> > > 100KB I'm wondering if Flex was the wrong technology for my 
project.
> > > I'm not very familiar with Flash, so I don't know how small I 
could
> > > get the file size for a comparable solution in Flash. Below is 
the
> > > original thread.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > I've created a widget using Adobe's Flex technology which has a 
SWF
> > > file size of approx. 350KB. I've optimized the widget using all 
the
> > > techniques I could find such as: compiler flags, not embedding 
assets
> > > into the SWF, dynamic loading of modules, etc.
> > >
> > > Assuming 350KB is the smallest I can get my SWF file, is this 
still
> > > too big to distribute as a widget?
> > >
> > > Here are two distribution strategies we are looking at:
> > >
> > > 1.) Put the widget on a majority of the pages on our website so 
when
> > > users come to our website they will see the widget and download 
it.
> > > This will be great for distribution, but currently, our website 
gets
> > > a good deal of traffic (Alexa top 10,000 ranking website). And, 
all
> > > of the pages on our website are around 60-150KB, and there is a 
lot
> > > of worry that a 350KB widget will weigh down the page too much 
and
> > > make it very slow when loading. There is also concern that 
adding an
> > > additional 350KB will greatly impact our bandwidth costs since 
many
> > > users will hit these pages.
> > >
> > > 2.) Create a "widget gallery" on our website where our users 
can go
> > > to grab the widget and put it on their MySpace, Facebook, etc. 
This
> > > will keep the rest of the pages on our website light and fast, 
but
> > > the distribution of the widget will get severely impacted.
> > >
> > > I want to know what other developers are doing in similar 
situations.
> > >
> > > Is Flex the wrong technology for creating widgets? What are 
some avg
> > > size SWF files that other widget developers are creating? If a 
150KB
> > > page has an additional 350KB flex widget, is it going to greatly
> > > impact the loading time?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for your advice!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
> > --
> > Flexcoders Mailing List
> > FAQ: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt
> > Alternative FAQ location:
> > https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=942dbdc8-e469-
446f-b4cf-1e62079f6847
> > Search Archives:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.comYahoo! 
Groups
> > Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls. It tolls for 
thee."
> 
> Like the cut of my jib? Check out my Flex blog!
> 
> :: Josh 'G-Funk' McDonald
> :: 0437 221 380 :: j...@...
> :: http://flex.joshmcdonald.info/
> :: http://twitter.com/sophistifunk
>