Can anyone tell me what is and isn't recommended when it comes to mixing in classes from the mx package in an Actionscript only project?
Specifically I want to use AsyncToken, IResponder and HTTPService classes in the mx package in an Actionscript project.
I guess the mixing problem comes when you need to use mx.* classes, but you're on a pure as3 project.
If it's as3, you can still make an actionscript flex project, using the framework.
When it comes to Flash, you can either export a SWC with your actionscript exported (linkage setup) and add that to your flex project.
Again, if your project weighs more on the flex framework than on flash, you might find the Component Kit handy.
But if it's a Flash IDE more oriented project ( as in simple data coming in, mostly design work, not much nerdy stuff to it ), using a few mx.* classes, just for the HTTP service, doesn't make much sense. The problem comes with the fact that flex is a framework, therefore things rely on each other to work well, like a brick tower...brick upon brick, upon brick...
and since it's code you're working with, things are somewhat dynamic, but still not much cement...so you might end up wasting more time finding all the flex dependencies and getting them to work outside the medium they were made for, rather then building some of the functionality by hand.
If you need an as3 only implementation for WebService, Carlo Alducente has one.
HTH
The non-visual mx classes should work fine in a AS3 only project. But they have a lot of dependencies so you SWF will be bloated.
Related
I have a project where we are trying to skin Spark components from a third party library that are built up from the drawing API primitives. Our first attempt involved creating a Flex skin (SWC) in Illustrator/Flash and applying that skin to the Spark components via CSS. We found that even with only a single instance of one of the components skinned in this way on stage, the application was brought to it's knees. For example, it failed to respond in repaint scenarios in a timely manner, and exhibited all the symptoms of being hung.
Our next approach will be to recreate the same skin artifacts in MXML classes that are in turn associated with the third-party components. Although the complexity of some of the skins leads me to believe that we might not avoid performance problems with this approach either.
My question is the following: Is there a correct or recommended way to apply either a SWC or based skin to a component that is built up from the Spark drawing API to begin with? Even as I ask the question I recognize that the approach means using the Spark drawing API in two places and will probably have unexpected consequences.
I've had good luck building the skins using MXML skin classes that inherit from s:Skin in terms of rendering performance. The recommended method (from Adobe) is to start by copying an existing skin file from the SDK and modifying the MXML to suit your needs. Regarding drawing, FXG works very well for defining how you want the skin to be drawn. FXG is XML based, so you don't need to write ActionScript to do your drawing, like we used to do for Flex 3 programmatic skins. You can also create skins using Adobe Catalyst. I have not used Catalyst, so I can't speak to its effectiveness, but many people seem to like it. Hope that helps.
I'm familiar with most of the Flash vs. Flex comparisons out there and most of them present some version of "Flex is better for RIA's while Flash is better for design work".
Yet isn't it entirely possible to write elaborate RIA's using the URLLoader class + server side code? In this regard, I'm unclear as to what Flex offers aside from a set of handy user controls.
The reason I ask is that I'm starting a fairly complex Flash piece that needs to take a lot of round-trips to the DB. I'm hoping to avoid introducing a new framework into the equation but don't want to get bit by performance, scaling issues down the road.
Thanks.
T
If all you need above basic Flash is to make HTTP requests to get data from the server, by all means, go ahead and use URLLoader.
Use Flex when:
You do want that nice GUI library. (This can be as simple as a desire to use Flex's automatic layout facilities, like VBoxes.)
You want to compile your app from the command line, like traditional software. (This is independent of the Flex framework. The Flex SDK build tools can also build plain old AS3 projects.)
You want to build your application in a traditional software development IDE, Flex/Flash Builder, rather than the graphics and animation centric Flash Professional environment.
Your UI is better declared in MXML than built graphically in Flash Professional.
Yes, I guess it would be possible to write RIAs using the URLLoader class + server side code - but Flex makes it easier to write them.
[Bindable]
I believe one of the major features that makes RIA development easier with Flex is data binding.
For example, you can easily assign httpservice.lastResult to the dataProvider of a DataGrid and forget about it. In Flash, you need to manually parse each time complete event is fired and recreate the dataProvider - while this might sometimes be efficient in terms of performance and memory management (provided we design it well), it takes some effort as compared to Flex's way of doing it with a one-liner.
Classes like XMLListCollection and ArrayCollection also makes things easier with flex.
Flash is meant for presentation/visual/pretty stuff. Flex is meant for data.
I beg to differ!
With the Flex SDK you can develop "pure" AS3 code that would do and look the exact same way that something you'd do with the Flash IDE.
Flex is an AS3 framework made for developing RIA's but first of all it's an AS3 framework.
Lots of Flex developers were using Flash before Flex/FlexBuilder came out. I just think that if you're into "pure" development and don't need all of the Flash IDE's drawing tools, you'll feel much more confortable with a text editor and the flex sdk.
I use URLLoader in my flex code sometimes, and other times I use RemoteObject or HTTPService, I don't think there's any rule for that.
If you're going to be making a lot of round trips to the DB, I think it would be a good idea to consider Flex since you'll be able to use the faster and less verbose AMF protocol rather than HTTP/RESTful protocols, which are generally slow and 'heavyweight.'
Flex provides a pretty decent set of UI controls, which saves enormous time when dealing with large amounts of data. Have you ever built a control in Flash? It's tough to do right and bug free. So that's the #1 reason.
Also Flex, and especially Flash Builder 4, have features existing and upcoming that better interface with data sources of all types..
Flash is meant for presentation/visual/pretty stuff. Flex is meant for data.
I've tried looking everywhere for a concise list of the advantages and disadvantages of using Flex vs. Flash.
Coming from a programming background, I absolutely love Flex. It's easy to pick up, and since it can use flash classes, why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex:
Pros:
good for RIA development
provides many user-input options out of the box
Build in lay-outing system
the MXML is easier for non-programmers
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects because of their modular
nature.
can be developed using linux
has a nice component lifecycle for validation, etc.
Cons:
increases the size of your .swf
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
when you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash
Pros:
good for making movies/animations
Timeline can be easier for designers/animators to conceptualize
when working from scratch, provides a great deal of control.
easier for someone with a programming background
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
only provides basic user input (text box) out of the box.
timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
can't be developed using linux
user input validation must all be handled in the code. No built-in validation.
need to implement your own lay-outing system
Please correct me if I missed anything said so far.
Flash and Flex both use the same underlying rendering engine, just with different front-ends. Flash is better suited for making movies and animations. Flex is better for application development.
From a programmer's viewpoint, the big difference between Flash and Flex is not so much which IDE/application you use for programming, but whether you program in ActionScript (AS) only, or use the Flex framework and MXML to program your applications.
I would say pure ActionScript is better for programming (whether you use Flash IDE or Flex IDE is not that relevant), and MXML is better for non-programmers to combine the components programmed in AS.
I would add to your list these pros/cons:
Flex:
Pros:
Easier for non-programmers to get into application development
You can quickly combine components to create small applications
Components can provide an advantage in large-scale projects
Cons:
Customizing the look of components can take a lot longer than anticipated, depending on the visual style you're looking for
When you find out you need a custom component that doesn't exist, you might need to go back to Flash to do the real programming work and packaging of the component
The "flexibility" of Flex means you will be reading a lot of documentation
Bugs in the Flex framework
You eventually will need to compromise with the architecture of the Flex framework
Flash (or Flex IDE in ActionScript project mode):
Pros:
Easier for someone with a programming background ;)
You can program whatever you like; no compromises with existing frameworks
Cons:
Timeline can be daunting for programmers (although you can quite safely ignore it)
Development of certain types of applications will be slower than with Flex
In short: pick the right tool for the right task.
Flex is a library of code written in ActionScript3, so it adds lots of capabilities and standard-library-like stuff to Flash. The downside is that it a is a huges amount code that gets included into your application. If you use any Flex at all in your app, the download size of the SWF goes up by 100's of K.
If your application has any kind of user interface widgets, then you almost have to use Flex as Flash itself only has the most basic things like text boxes. Flex has a whole XML GUI with layouts, data binding and XML setup etc.
Doing that in flash, you end up having to write from scratch things like list boxes...
In my opinion, the most important feature of the Flex framework is the component lifecycle, which provides a really elegant model for validation/invalidation of properties, component size, and hierarchical rendering.
The benefit to developers is that it creates discrete application phases for business logic and rendering, avoiding expensive geometry & rendering code until the last possible moment before drawing a frame.
Here's a really good presentation, explaining how it works:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15384v1002
The model is so well-designed that the component lifecycle remains almost entirely invisible during the majority of Flex development, when you're using the framework default components and containers. You only need to learn the inner-workings when you start developing your own components.
Developing in the Flash environment, or in pure Actionscript, you don't get any of that. Anyone developing pure AS3 applications either needs to code very carefully to separate business logic from rendering, or will suffer severely decreased performance.
[...] why would I want to use Flash without flex?
Flex is a new product, whereas Flash existed from the Macromedia days. Designer, animators and most anybody who is not brought up on a staple diet of programming education will probably find Flash easier to master than most other such solutions.
Target is different.
Flex is more dedicated for programmer while Flash is more friendly to Artist / web designer.
Flash is the IDE used (generally) to create animations and things that work well on a timeline.
Flex works better for creating internet applications which have interactions more akin to a desktop.
Why use Flash? Well, if you need to do something more specifically attached to a timeline, of course!
I see Flex as more of a solution for doing RIA applications where you need to develop application based solutions. There's quite a lot you get right out of the box with using Flex but it also comes at a price in terms of file size, granularity, etc.
If on the other hand you are working on a totally custom solution such as a game then perhaps Flash is the way to go because you can start fresh with a blank canvas. Many people still use Flash because they don't need all the app based bells and whistles of the Flex platform.
I like the freedom of Flash, and its really simple to embed assets in Flash, a little more confusing to do in Flex.
One thing that I love about flex is the ability to make a fluid application with minimal effort. Which would take forever in Flash.
Anything you can do in flex you can do in flash, just may take a lot longer to do. You can't do everything in flex that you can do in flash though.
Flex takes care of all the UI programming for you and lets you focus on the business logic, with flash you will spend a majority of time programming the UI.
You can develop Flex applications under Linux easily but with Flash you simply can't.
Another solution that was not suggested at here, will be to use them both. You can add flex components to flash movie clips using ContainerMovieClip. And you can add flash movie clips to flex components using SpriteVisualElement. Another thing that wasn't mentioned was lay-outing your application. It will be flex pros against flash disadvantage, because you got build in flex lay-outing system. But again when you are using them both, you can layout your movie clips with flex lay-outing system.
Also flex become Apache top-level project. And it become more and more excepted by the community now.
Flash and Flex are 2 complete different things, one is a design tool with support for action script, the other one is a framework that also has action script but is maily built around MXML which is a XML based UI definition "Language".
I have done all of my Flash applications up until now with the Flash IDE (although I rarely use the timelines, since I prefer to do everything in code) or in FlexBuilder as Flex applications. Are apps that just extend Sprite (used in the FlexBuilder IDE, for instance) a viable way of doing an application, or are they just for HelloWorlds? Under what conditions would you not bother to use the Flash IDE? Can MXML files be used with apps that just extend Sprite?
Note: I'm not asking when to use Flex vs. Flash. I am also not asking whether the Flash IDE or the FlexBuilder IDE is better for editing ActionScript files.
Edit: What I mean by "can MXML files be used with apps that just extend Sprite?" I am referring to whether you can use MXML markup in an Actionscript 3.0 file in Flexbuilder 3. I'm pretty sure you cannot do this.
Are apps that just extend Sprite (used in the FlexBuilder IDE, for instance) a viable way of doing an application, or are they just for HelloWorlds?
In Flex you have the option of extending the Sprite class or implementing the IUIComponent class. There are differences though.
Under what conditions would you not bother to use the Flash IDE?
Do you need dataservices? In that case, I am not too sure how easy it is to work with the Flash IDE.
Can MXML files be used with apps that just extend Sprite?
Not too sure what you mean by apps. However, AS3 components work just fine with MXML. Sprites will have to be wrapped up in some sort of a IUIComponent if you are using it with MXML. MXML is syntactic sugar. It is compiled into AS3 and as such may not be as efficient if you were to code them up.
This blogpost may be of interest to you.
I think the simple answer is "YES". I have built multiple sites and apps in pure AS3 that "just extend Sprite" in FlexBuilder.
I like to code, so I don't use the flash IDE for anything. That said, I see how much faster my Flash buddies can build some things, so I suggest building small, individual effects in Flash and then importing the .swc file into FlexBuilder.
What are the key differences between Flash and Flex? I have over five years experience with flash and feel very comfortable developing with it and ActionScript3. I find myself more and more curious about Flex and want to know when it is best to use flash or flex. Also, is everything that can be done with MXML, able to be done with AS3? I have a strong understanding of AS3 and OOP and would like to know the diffrences between using AS3 and MXML in Flex.
Flex is great if you quickly want to build a UI, you can mock up a functioning UI in a couple hours. Since it still can be limiting for some custom UI's it's not perfect for everything but if something should "look" more or less like an application and fit in a grid it's super quick to mock up the UI in MXML. Also don't be intimidated of how most Flex apps look (ugly, imo), you can customize everything or easily create your own components.
Putting actionscript in mxml is the same as putting css or javascript in html = really bad. Unfortunately even Adobe has this in multiple examples (probably mostly because it's easier & faster for demostrations).. My personal opinion is that this applies to bindings too, as i don't want to put my data in the UI (mxml).
As an experienced developer I'm sure you don't do any development on the timeline (to clarify the Flash = timeline misconception). Still with Flex you have the UI separated in a framework that handles a lot of the burden with layout so that you can concentrate on the business logic. The rest of the workflow is close to what you probably already have with Flash.
It depends on what kind of applications you are developing now with Flash. I have been a Flash developer (mainly applications) for 7 years. I must honestly say that I was extremely glad when Flex 2 was released because it had the component framework (good components, layout managers, ...) I did not have in Flash. This is IMO the biggest difference between Flash and Flex (or the Flex framework).
MXML is a real blessing, especially when using data binding. In the end, everything is compiled down to ActionScript (check the -keep compiler option), but MXML just saves you so much time.
Flash and Flex provide different ways to produce different things. I am not familiar with Flash, but I would expect that it is dependent on a time-oriented way to produce something, whereas Flex is geared toward more traditional software development. That is, rather than dealing with time and frames in Flash, one is dealing with describing where components should be placed with MXML and how those components work with ActionScript.
One should also be able to write a Flex app with just AS3 and no need MXML.
The main difference between AS3 and MXML in Flex, as far as I know, is that MXML is not intended to be used with application logic, but rather it is intended to be used like HTML/CSS in web pages and puts components and content onto the Flex app. ActionScript is used to program behaviors, components, and other things outside or what MXML does. Thus, if you want to attach an event to a component one would write ActionScript code.
Hope that helps. I am still learning about Flex myself.
Some other differences that come to mind:
Flash allows you to create graphical assets and then work with them immediately. To use those same things in Flex, you need to use Flash to export them to a swf or swc first.
Flex has a layout manager, so applications that have variable window size are waaaay easier to make. For instance, you can take a window and set it to 90% width of the window, and it will change size... not scale mind you, but actually change its width as the window is made larger or smaller. This is not easy outside of the Flex framework.
Data Binding in Flex is a huge timesaver. It essentially creates all of the code you'd need to write in AS3 by simply saying blah="{foo}" The curley braces denote "bind to this".
The Flex Debugger is vastly superior to the Flash one. There is also a Profiler.
Since I started with Flex and not Flash, I'm not sure what kind of IDE is best for Flash dev, but the Eclipse based Flex Builder is quite nice. The code hinting is great. Subclipse integration is great.
Really, Flash and Flex are different beasts. You should know and understand AS3 if you want to use Flex, and since you do, you're in a perfect position to take advantage of Flex's features. Flash is not going anywhere as a tool for making more visually creative pieces, but Flex offers a lot of advantages for application development.
I prefer Flash IDE vs Flex (aka Flex Builder aka Flash Builder for my comment)
In general i would say it depends on the size of the project.
I find it easier to start and finish small projects quickly in Flash.
I would advise Flex for larger projects because it has various debug tools that can save you plenty of time (although i would still just use Flash my self)
But maybe if you really get used to flex, that might not matter.
some Cons of Flex from my experience.
When working on a team of 4 on a
large project, Flex failed to keep
the project
settings from one computer to another. (we shared files using SVN)
Flex constantly conflicted with SVN for us.
I felt distant from the art assets.
some Pros of Flex
being able to follow variable references from one class to another at the click of a button.
being able to easily see many variables while debugging. w/o needing to trace them.
and Flash used to not have Custom Class Code hinting, but now with CS5 it does.
I think you can use the newest features of Flash Player w/o waiting for a new Flash CS#, for example MoleHill (a new 3d api that uses the GPU) has a beta release out right now. and i think the Flex SDK can already use it.
hope this helps.
it should be noted that I am a rare case that doesn't prefer flex, most people strongly prefer flex, so you should give it a try at least.
MXML compiles to action script so it's really like a higher level version of that. So, yes, everything that can be done with MXML can be done with actionscript (but not the other way around).
Flash CSx:
GUI\Layout: Basic GUI class framework
Graphical Content: Great for editing graphical library objects with or without animation
Code: Lacks a good code editor
Flex/Flash Builder + Flex Framework:
GUI\Layout: Advanced GUI class framework and layout engine (Flex)
Graphical Content: Lacks drawing capabilities of Flash, but you can include Flash generated graphics by exporting them for ActionScript into a SWC and importing/referencing the SWC in Flash Builder.
Code: Much better code editor than Flash; not sure if it's on par with FlashDevelop
Other: Supports MXML, which is basically just another style of laying out content. Instead of writing a bunch of "c = new C()", "c.prop = x", "c.addChild"... you can structure display objects and thier children using XML constructs, and the MXML compiler will convert it all back into the less-readable, but basically the same AS3 code.
These technologies are all related and interoperable. They are natural and predictable extensions of the Flash player and ActionScript techonolgies, but for some reason Adobe developed the Flex/Flex-builder/MXML technologies as a totally separate product, and market it as something totally new and oh-so-amazing. Whatever. So now we have to go back and forth between the two to use all the features, which is LAME. They also have to waste time and resources developing unnecessary, but helpful, packages like the "Flex Component Kit" to reduce the number of steps necessary to get Flash content into Flash Builder.
You have to go back and forth between these applications, because of their mutually exclusive features -- Flash Builder lacks graphics editing, and Flash CSx lacks MXML and a good code editor -- but they're interoperable in the sense that you can use Flex classes in Flash, Flash classes (and their embedded graphics) in Flex, you can use Flash Builder and MXML without Flex, etc.
I think they need a single, truly integrated Flash IDE, so they need to merge Flash Builder into the Flash CSx editor.