keep in touch.

But if that is for mobile platform, that’s totally different story. It can be even better than AMF, even if AMF existed for Flash lite 1.1, because SWX is bytecode itself. I was realized this can be very useful for Flash lite or limited machine like PSP, Wii, PS3, iPhone(hopefully).
Now I work in Japan, when I developed small app for Flash lite 1.1, it was really painful. So, I took out the most of actionscript from fla file and generate swf file on the fly using SWFScout.

Anyway, my point is in Japan almost every mobile has Flash lite, it has really big market without any proper tools.
But unfortunately, SWX doesn’t support flash 4 which is Flash lite 1.1.
There are 2.0 and 3.0 supporting mobile but 1.1 is still dominant and in terms of performance it’s better.
And the adaptation of new flash lite player is really slow in Japan, I guess because there are not much needs. For user, it’s just the same flash unless they’re developer.
Although I don’t know Ruby ming supports Flash 4.0, if SWX supports Flash lite 1.1, I believe it will bring lots of benefits and possibilities to SWX format.

What do you think?

The SWF format is a low-level fundamental building block of the Flash Platform. The Flash Player is very performant in loading and parsing SWF files as that is essentially the core of what it does.

However, I haven’t run any benchmarks on client-side deserialization but I haven’t noticed it to be an issue and my approach is not to worry about optimization issues that are not issues

Some time ago I read a blog post from Ted Patrick (http://www.onflex.org/ted/2007/11/abcs-of-amf.php) in which he explains that there is very little overhead when using AMF with AS3 ByteArrays. He writes: “Fast Serialization/Deserialization - AMF is transformed using native C code in the player so it is blazing fast. The AMF format was designed to serialize and deserialize quickly under low memory and slower CPU conditions. As the AMF data is parsed directly to objects, there is no lag for interpretation or parsing of AMF and creation of objects is done on a single pass.”

Now this made me wonder if SWX AS3 still will perform better in the (de)serialization area in comparison to AMF through ByteArrays on a Flash 9 client. What’s your take on this? Maybe you did some benchmarking on both solutions?

Ted also mentions the added benefit of the standard zlib compression. Is SWX data also zlib compressed?

Ignore the Trolls; clearly the fact that you have a Ruby port submitted by another developer BEFORE YOU’VE EVEN POSTED THAT SUCH A PROJECT HAS BEEN STARTED on the roadmap says that there is some, ever so slight, interest : )

I’m working my way through the Django tutorials at the moment so I’m personally hoping that there will be a handy dandy Python port by the time I’m up to speed (I noticed that, besides the Ruby project, there was also a .Net already in the works mentioned around here somewhere).

As it is I hit this site every week or so just to see what’s cooking…and I’m sure that I’m not the only one!

Keep up the great work.