OK, I didn't mean to include the asset module, but for all the code involved which you are currently pulling from the framework RSLs and then adding your own (plus Greensock and Tweener), how will making a single custom RSLs that may or may not be in the browser cache be better than a single SWF that contains all of the code?
-Alex On 12/3/13 2:56 PM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >It saves us a great deal of time and resources when we have to release >new art. > >We can break cache on the art asset module and not have to run a full QA >regression on the main app. This gives us the flexibility as a company >to deliver constantly changing content to our users w/o forcing them to >download every file again, or dedicating our time and resources to QA of >the application when we only want to change a single image in the game >list. > >It is a logistical and political need as much as it is a technical >decision to approach it this way. > >> From: aha...@adobe.com >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:43:33 -0800 >> Subject: Re: SharedLibrary not works with SDK 4.11 >> >> >> >> On 12/3/13 2:38 PM, "David Coleman" <david_coleman_...@hotmail.com> >>wrote: >> >> >Actually Alex, what is the biggest culprit in our file is Greensock, >>and >> >after that, a whole mess of engine logic needed to handle the interface >> >with the games. Also some of our legacy animations use Tweener, so for >> >now I'm cursed with having to include BOTH libs in the main app. >> > >> >I also think that 500K is too much and like I said, each version I >> >whittle it down a little more. >> > >> >I've often thought of loading the engine container as a module to >>remove >> >another 100K or so from the main app. >> > >> >How would i create a custom RSL? Can I automate it via ant to generate >> >it via the link-reports? I'd like to keep one RSL for ALL files, app, >> >and modules to increase cache hits, and not hit a different file each >> >time. >> > >> >I'm really curious to experiment with this. It's ok if the browser >>cache >> >expires, that's beyond my control, but 99% of the time it will be a >> >benefit - I'm ok with those numbers. >> I asked this in the other reply, but how will that save you over a >>single >> monolithic SWF? If you're not in the cache, then instead of loading two >> things, one of which may contain classes you don't need until later, you >> only load what you need when you need it. >> >> -Alex >> >
