[dojo-contributors] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Flash Cross-Site Access Plugin]]

Mike Wilcox mwilcox at sitepen.com
Mon Oct 20 17:14:14 EDT 2008

On Oct 20, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
> I think it'd be quite possible for me to include the necessary MXML  
> project files or whatever along with the distribution, accommodating  
> that concern. But I wouldn't want to eliminate the .fla from the  
> distribution, since some people might prefer to use flash for their  
> re-compilation rather than messing with Flex.  Is it possible to  
> address their concerns by additionally including the MXML project  
> files, or are they saying that the .fla couldn't/shouldn't be part  
> of what you distribute?

Yes, we want to discourage the use of FLAs, since the Flash IDE is not  
open source. Distributing them even as a second option is not very  
"open sourcey".

I do however, use the Flash IDE to debug Deft files all the time (it  
helps with runtime errors). In the Properties tab of an FLA file,  
insert the main AS file of your package as the Document Class. Then  
make sure the FLA is saved relative to that file.

> So, I'd have to figure out if MXML/Flex can be used to compile a SWF  
> targeted at old AS1 style (flash v6) compilation or not. If it can,  
> then I could and would certainly want to include that as well.  If  
> not, then this might be a point of incompatibility, unfortunately.

I'm afraid that's a big problem. MXMLC only compiles Flash version 9  
and up. I'm also not sure if Adobe licensing would cover an older  
version of a SWF.

However, MTASC does older Flash files (though not newer, AS3 files).  
And we do still support that I believe, since we still have  
dojox.flash storage. It may be depreciated though. Tom may have to  
tackle this one.


> -----------------------------
> If these concerns prove too difficult to work through, it's  
> certainly understandable, and I think having my the flXHR-Dojo  
> plugin at least included, with a link/txt-file to where to get the  
> other necessary files from my site, would be just fine too.  You're  
> right, the http://flxhr.flensed.com/ page would be the right page to  
> direct them to, as it has a big prominent link on it for  
> downloading...
> Anyway, thanks again for all your help and effort on this.  Let me  
> know what they say about the MXML stuff.
> --Kyle
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Kris Zyp" <kris at sitepen.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:28 PM
> To: "Getify Solutions" <getify at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [dojo-contributors] Flash Cross-Site Access Plugin]
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Kyle,
>> Here is the response from some of the Dojo folks about the  
>> possibility
>> of including flXHR in Dojo. If you are interested, great, but if not,
>> I will at least including a link to your plugin in the documentation
>> for xhrPlugins. Should I link to http://flxhr.flensed.com/, or you
>> will have a more specific page/download for the plugin?
>> Thanks,
>> Kris
>> - --
>> Kris Zyp
>> SitePen
>> (503) 806-1841
>> http://sitepen.com
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkj36kAACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAy86gCgnvgZ1tbhwDl3gCrqH6jWoZDL
>> xaQAn0tvw4OBYZHT9DOt9850iOSq+dFx
>> =MWQ8
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> From: "Getify Solutions, Inc." <getify at gmail.com>
> Date: October 18, 2008 2:19:20 PM CDT
> To: "Kris Zyp" <kris at sitepen.com>
> Subject: flXHR with MXMLC
> Hey, something interesting to note.  I just re-compiled the  
> flXHR.swf file with MXMLC from Flex 3.1 SDK (no changes to AS code  
> needed, thankfully!)... like I had mentioned before, the file it  
> creates *is* ~130 bytes larger than the one that the Flash IDE  
> creates.  That's very confusing to me. It might have to do with flex  
> framework stuff that mxmlc's default configuration is including  
> (font aliasing, etc), so I might be able to tune that down more,  
> we'll see.
> BUT... here's what's crazy about that.  Despite the slightly larger  
> size, the flXHR.swf that MXMLC compiles appears to load/operate MUCH  
> quicker (testing only in IE so far) -- like, a very, very noticeable  
> speed increase in how quickly it loads and runs!
> Compiling the SWF with MXMLC doesn't require any additional project  
> files or anything. Just a few config switches in the actual  
> command.  That command looks like:
> mxmlc -target-player="9.0.124" -default-size 1 1 -use-network - 
> default-frame-rate=1 -show-actionscript-warnings=false - 
> output="flXHR.swf" Main.as
> I'm trying to figure out how to set those options in a custom XML  
> config file so they don't need to be on the command-line.  If I can  
> figure that out, I'll certainly include that in the distribution to  
> help end-users.
> So, anyway, this is a very interesting development, with the  
> improved performance.  I'm totally convinced though.  The SWF I  
> distribute now is going to be the MXMLC version.  I'll still want to  
> include the .FLA source file if a user doesn't have/want-to-use flex  
> SDK command-line compiler. They'll just have the caveat that their  
> SWF from the IDE will always be less optimal!
> ----------------------------
> On another note, regarding trying to open-source compile the AS1 of  
> the "updateplayer.swf" from CheckPlayer/SWFObject. Unfortunately,  
> MXMLC is unable to compile it, as it's only able to deal with AS3.   
> It seems like MTASC might be able to do so, but it's confusing with  
> conflicting documentation/info, and so far, everything I've tried  
> gives compilation errors with the .AS file.  And I also looked into  
> MING, which should apparently be able to compile AS1 SWF's.   
> However, I wasn't able to figure MING out yet.
> So, again, this may be a sticking point where we can't get flXHR's  
> files directly included in the DojoX build distro. I'm not sure.   
> What do your colleagues think?  Even if so, I think we should easily  
> be able to get the flXHR distribution linked to, with the plugin  
> code itself still part of DojoX, right? Slightly less ideal that a  
> user will have to go elsewhere to download more files, but  
> manageable I would think.
> Looking forward to hearing what you and the others think.  Talk with  
> you soon.
> --Kyle
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at dojotoolkit.org
> http://turtle.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors

Mike Wilcox
mwilcox at sitepen.com
work: 650.968.8787 x218
cell:	  214.697.4872

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20081020/6889e7ea/attachment.htm 

More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list