On Feb 10, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > > On 2/10/13 7:41 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The numbers were for release. >> >> The debug size using RSLs is about 1 MB. >> >> I'm not really sure if modules can help. There are not many modular >> components >> in the app. Maybe I can load the image browser as a module, but I don't know >> how much of a difference that will make. There are a number of palettes that >> might be candidates. I'll see what I can do on that front, but I don't have >> high hopes. My bigger concern is really the Flex libs which have more bulk >> than the whole app... Is there a good way of figuring out where the bulk is >> coming from? > Link-reports might help.
Not sure what you mean here. > I went to your demo page at: > https://printui.com/web-to-print-demo-step-1.php > > The first screen just looks like buttons and an image loader to me. That > shouldn't be that big. As soon as the image loads, I would request load of > a module of other UI widgets and associated logic while the user is > pondering what to do next. Like I said, there are palettes that can be loaded as modules. It might or might not help. The "image" is actually multiple objects rendered as Flex components. Text is a customized RichEditableText component. (That's being changed soon to a completely custom component due to limitations in RichEditableText and our rendering requirements.) Images are compound components with sub-elements, same goes for native objects. > I don't know about the ethics of it, but since your landing pages are php, > I'm not sure why you couldn't start pre-loading other SWFs after the page is > displayed so more stuff is there if the user continues on. > Interesting idea. The primary use of the app is integration into third party websites, but I guess we can recommend that to our clients as well… >> >> If I'm reading you right, the caching of swfs is actually more persistent >> than >> the caching of unsigned RSLs. Right? > RSLs and SWFs have the same caching rules in the browser. The issue is the > probability of a cache-miss. The signed RSL cache in the player prevented > cache-misses if the user had no browser cache or emptied the cache or had > limits on cache size. > >> >> On Feb 10, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >>> The only advantage to un-signed RSLs is if you serve more than one SWF that >>> uses them from your domain. SWFs end up on disk in a browser cache (if >>> there is one and within the limitations of that cache) so then there is a >>> probability you won't have to download some code. >>> >>> Apache Flex will hopefully release often. The Framework RSLs were >>> version-specific, so releasing often further lowers your chances of any >>> benefit even if we did have a way to serve cross-domain RSLs. >>> >>> I suppose we could try to host RSLs at some known place, but browser cache >>> limitations would still apply, and you'd want a custom domain name otherwise >>> you'd expose yourself to cross-domain scripting. >>> >>> Are your SWF size numbers for release mode or debug mode? Using modules >>> carefully can lower the size of the initial load. >>> >>> >>> On 2/10/13 6:54 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Okay. Like you said this sucks. >>>> >>>> I'm looking to moving from Flex 4.5 to 4.9 in the next few weeks. I just >>>> changed my compile settings to merge instead of using RSLs and the app went >>>> from a little over 600 KB to 1.4 MB. :-( >>>> >>>> I clearly have a lot of work to do removing dependency on a lot of classes >>>> and >>>> getting rid of dependency on mx components (I have a very few in use, but >>>> the >>>> ones that I'm using will be hard to replace with Spark.) >>>> >>>> I'm still not sure why Flash can't cache third party signed RSLs, but >>>> there's >>>> not much to be gained by kvetching about it. I doubt they'll add that as a >>>> feature to FlashŠ >>>> >>>> Harbs >>>> >>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: >>>> >>>>> When I say signed, I'm meaning signed by Adobe. There really is >>>>> little benefit to sign an RSL with our certificates, as they are in the >>>>> web >>>>> of trust of the Flash Player. >>>>> >>>>> From what I've been told, unless it is signed by Adobe, it is not in >>>>> the persistent cache, so it is not cached on disk, period. This is >>>>> regardless of the domain that it is on. >>>>> >>>>> This came up VERY early on (maybe even at the Tech Summit -- I don't know, >>>>> I wasn't there), and Adobe was pretty straight forward that this was going >>>>> to be the case. Questions came up about having them sign it, but they did >>>>> not want to dedicated the resources to do it. Looking back, it would have >>>>> been a pain to have to submit our releases to Adobe for their complete >>>>> review before we could do anything -- potentially holding back our >>>>> releases >>>>> weeks or months. >>>>> >>>>> It was seen as a majority of the Flex work was moving to mobile. On AIR >>>>> with mobile, there is no concept of RSLs (everything is embedded within >>>>> the >>>>> final executable), so it was seen as less of an issue. >>>>> >>>>> -Nick >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bah! So they're totally useless. >>>>>> >>>>>> swfs are also cached by the browser for that session. Correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there any logic to not caching RSLs for the domain that loaded them? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Only signed RSLs are cached on disk. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed meaning signed by Adobe. Right? There's no way to sign a RSL with >>>>>> an SSL or code signing certificate. Is there? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> They are downloaded once per domain, per session. If you visit domain >>>>>>> x.comtwice in a session (as defined by your browser), then it will >>>>>>> stay in >>>>>>> memory. If you close your session (typically by closing your browser), >>>>>>> then it will be cleared from memory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only signed RSLs are cached on disk. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Nick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I apparently missed this. Yes. It does suck. Are RSLs reloaded every >>>>>> time >>>>>>>> for a specific domain, or is it just a cross-domain issue? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I use RSLs for Flex 4.9 and I update my main app, do the RSLs get >>>>>>>> downloaded every time, or will the RSLs from my domain be reused? Is >>>>>> there >>>>>>>> any point in using RSLs at all? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adobe has (had?) a pretty good explanation on their Flash Whitepaper. >>>>>> It >>>>>>>>> boils down to this : >>>>>>>>> - They are no longer in control of Flex >>>>>>>>> - They are no longer doing security reviews of the source code >>>>>>>>> - They have to sign the Flex package with their security certificate >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> order for it to be stored in the Flash RSL Cache >>>>>>>>> - They won't sign it anymore because they would be responsible for any >>>>>>>>> security issues that may come out of it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it sucks, but unfortunately, we have to live with it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Nick >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < >>>>>>>>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have to admit, that I don't quite understand what the inability to >>>>>>>>>> create signed rsls has to do with the usage of rsls themselves. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem is that the Flashplayer is able to install rsls that are >>>>>>>>>> signed by Adobe. Usually the Adobe FDK rsls were also available in >>>>>>>> signed >>>>>>>>>> versions (swz files). These were dynamically loaded the first time >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> were needed and installed by the Flashplayer. The second time the >>>>>>>>>> libs >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> needed the installed versions were used reducing the download time >>>>>>>>>> dramatically. Now the problem is that Adobe won't sign Apache SWCs as >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> are no longer in charge of the libs code (Understandable). Giving >>>>>>>> Apache a >>>>>>>>>> key to be able to also create signed RSLs would eventually open >>>>>> serious >>>>>>>>>> security problems because a signed manipulated swz would be used by >>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>> other website using the same version of a given lib. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Coming back to the RSLs ... The difference between a signed and an >>>>>>>>>> unsigned RSL is just, that the unsigned rsl is loaded on every visit >>>>>> of >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> user. As far as I know there is no other difference. So I don't quite >>>>>>>>>> understand why the lack of availability of signed rsls should have >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>> effect on built applications and the default linking type. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>>>>>>> Von: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013 14:19 >>>>>>>>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: RSLs and signing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I did not realize that Apache Flex does not use RSLs by default. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What's the story with signing? Is that an issue with cross-domain >>>>>>>>>> security? Is there any way to get an Apache signature approved for >>>>>>>> Flash? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Either way, I'd imagine I'd want RSLs for the simple reason that >>>>>>>> updating >>>>>>>>>> apps should result in a smaller download. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Harbs >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The default setting for Apache Flex is to not use RSLs because Adobe >>>>>>>>>>> cannot sign the Apache Flex RSLs. That's probably why your SWF is >>>>>>>>>> bigger. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/13 10:31 PM, "grimmwerks" <gr...@grimmwerks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all - long time listener first time caller. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've taken a project that was originally 4.6 and I flipped it to >>>>>> 4.9; >>>>>>>>>>>> comparing the same code on two computers - when I build with the >>>>>>>>>>>> 4.6 >>>>>>>>>>>> sdk I get a swf of 304k (with all the other extraneous libraries >>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> as osmf, mx, sparkspins, etc) -- whereas with 4.9 the main sf is >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1mb -- that's a huge difference with no other changes in code no? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Garry Schafer >>>>>>>>>>>> grimmwerks >>>>>>>>>>>> gr...@grimmwerks.com >>>>>>>>>>>> portfolio: www.grimmwerks.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Alex Harui >>>>>>>>>>> Flex SDK Team >>>>>>>>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alex Harui >>> Flex SDK Team >>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>> >> > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >
