Flash Remoting.com
Home Book Examples Blog Resources About

You are using an out-of-date browser so the pages will not display properly. Please update your browser.

Random thoughts on Flash Remoting:

This is where I get to ramble when I feel like it. Kind of like a blog, but it's not a blog. This is a blog. ;-).

98 posts.

1/06 | 9/05 | 8/05 | 7/05 | 10/04 | 8/04 | 7/04 | 6/04 | 4/04 | 3/04 | 2/04 | 1/04 | 12/03 | 11/03 | 10/03 | 9/03 | 8/03 | 7/03 | 6/03 | 5/03 | 4/03 | 3/03 | 1/03 | 12/02 | 11/02

New article about using Flash Remoting Components 2.0

Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:35:33 PM

Mike Kollen and Nahuel Foronda have written an outstanding article on Devnet (http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/trio/articles/trio_widget2004.html about using the new Flash Remoting 2.0 components in Flash MX 2004. They used the Trio Motors sample application to build the app. The article shows some best practices for building a Flash Remoting application using the new components using a MVC approach (model-view-controller).

Add comment (0)
View comments

Flash Remoting components updated!

Thursday, June 10, 2004 4:17:33 PM

The long-awaited Flash Remoting components for ActionScript 2.0 are finally here! Go here to download:

I've been involved with testing these and they are really great. The documentation especially has undergone a major renovation, including the entire approach that Macromedia has taken in documenting their software. It seems that they have finally seen the light, and the hard work of documenting Flash Remoting is finally being done. Because of the new format of the documentation, it is not available at Livedocs yet, but it is included with the download.

Add comment (2)
View comments


Friday, April 02, 2004 11:38:04 PM

I just got through the first day of TODCON and it was a blast. Ray West always puts on a great conference that's different from a lot of other conferences due to its smaller, more friendly atmosphere. At the end of a TODCON, everyone knows each other. The speakers are all top-notch as well.

Most of the Flash sessions were today, because many of the speakers had to head out to Flash in the Can the next day. The morning session was by Tom Green on telling a story. He made the point that a web site has to tell a story to be successful and make the story relevant to the end user in order to keep them interested in the experience of the site. Next, I sat in on 3 of Joey Lott's sessions. Joey is an excellent presenter and has great knowledge of his subject. His second session was on data access through Flash and dealt with the different methods available, from LoadVars and XML to Flash Remoting. He showed the parsing required in Flash to do the same operations in LoadVars, XML, and Flash Remoting, and showed how easy Flash Remoting is compared to the other methods of bringing data into Flash. Basically, you load the data and use it as opposed to parsing or serializing/deserializing the data. He touched on web services briefly, but also mentioned that Flash Remoting is probably the best way to deal with web services in Flash if you have access to a server that has Flash Remoting available. I agree with this also. The last presentation of the day was by Stephanie Sullivan on building a site from design to completion, and was informative to me because it dealt with areas that I am lacking in.

I'm presenting tomorrow on ColdFusion custom tags and on Sunday I'm doing a presentation on moving database operations out of the web application and into the database.

Add comment (1)
View comments

Flex again

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:43:09 AM

Just to clarify my last post, I think that the Flex product is amazing and certainly one of the best things that MM has done. However, there are a few problems with the pricing as I see it, that will likely be the downfall of the product:

For one, Macromedia is marketing this as an enterprise level application for (MM's words) "5-50 person team, application needs to be extended and maintained over several to many years, 6-18 month development cycle...)". For an application that requires development for 6-18 months or more, Macromedia has never in its history delivered an application that either:

1. Maintained a consistent API between versions (even ColdFusion changed from version 5 to 6 to 6.1 and broke applications)
2. Wasn't discontinued within a year of being released.

Considering this is a 1.0 release, I don't think we can expect consistency to the next version -- if there is a next version. There is not even a consistent API between Flex, Flash, and Central, although all 3 apps share similar components. Macromedia's other RIA environment, Flash, undergoes yearly changes that completely break existing code.

Also, the $12,000 price tag suggests an enterprise-level server, when in fact the application is a compiler. You get great time-savings building applications, but that is because the language is efficient and the tool to build the applications is efficient. The server performs a simple compilation of the SWF and then does nothing after that. There is no reason to run an application like this on an application server, because once the SWF is compiled, it is simply passed to the end user as-is.

What gets me is Macromedia's constant comments that it saves development time, and hence is worth $12,000. There is nothing about the $12,000 server that saves development time -- the savings is in using the language and the development tool. MM should deliver this product as a $1000-$2000 package consisting of a development IDE and debugger with a standalone compiler. What they are doing is holding the developer hostage by bundling the compiler into a $12,000 (minimum) server that essentially does nothing other than compile the SWF one time upon first use. Do we really need another server for our admins to learn, configure, and maintain?

All I can say is, Microsoft may be our best option for delivering RIA's to the web. I can't wait to see what they are working on. At least I know I'll be able to get on a beta if I need to. With Macromedia, if you're not one of their chosen few, forget it.

Add comment (18)
View comments

$12000 gui builder released by MM

Monday, March 29, 2004 1:39:31 PM

Macromedia released its $12,000 GUI builder, Flex, today. I have seen the product and all the examples posted, and while it's impressive, its cost is prohibitive. For what you are paying for, you are basically getting an archaic XML language variation that for all practical purposes exists solely for people who want to avoid the Flash gui for building rich internet applications. While it is certainly understandable that a programmer would want to avoid the Flash gui, it's not worth $12,000 to do it.

It also seems bizarre to compile a GUI at the application server level. Shouldn't a GUI be built in a development environment and compiled before it is deployed? I'll keep an eye on the technology, but it's probably not something I'll waste my time with at this point until MM relaxes their pricing. That may or may not happen. The product may just die a slow death. MM's marketing department seems to have unleased another Generator. Also, shades of Flash Remoting for ASP.NET and J2EE, which MM all but killed with their own pricing strategy. Who needs competitors when you kill your own products?

Add comment (16)
View comments

1-5 | 6-10 | 11-15 | 16-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-35 | 36-40 | 41-45 | 46-50 | 51-55 | 56-60 | 61-65 | 66-70 | 71-75 | 76-80 | 81-85 | 86-90 | 91-95 | 96-98