On 5 Jan 2012, at 10:29, f...@rduartes.net wrote: > On one hand, there is definitely a point for improving the framework's > modularity and split it in several normal rsl, but from my experience, > several of the users of applications I've built, especially in the > corporate/healthcare area, like to clean browser cache at the end of the day > in an effort to eliminate any history that would reveal where they've been in > the interewebs. I know this sound stupid, but it happens, so having the > framework protected in a different cache system would make sense.
Whether signed or not, or Fp cached or not, will the framework RSLs (release versions) be hosted on an Apache equivalent to fpdownload.adobe.com/pub/swz... ? If so, that potentially mitigates the case above? An organisation with such a cache cleaning policy might consider proxy-caching certain domains/resources - our RSL domain being a prime candidate. If not, there's going to be an immediate (network) performance hit for users of ApacheFlex. (not a committer - sorry if this is speaking out of turn) -- Paul Evans http://www.creative-cognition.co.uk/ http://blog.creacog.co.uk/
