incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arnoud Bos <arn...@artim-interactive.nl>
Subject Re: RFC - additional registerClassAlias
Date Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:52:22 GMT


On 05-04-2012, at 23:14, Michael A. Labriola wrote:

>> Really, you want to tie it to the attempt to deserialize a Vector, not the use of
Vector (or even VectorColletion) in any app, right?  You could subclass the known serialization
points and hook their initializers.  If you >go low-level, you should have to deal with
registration, but if you use VectorSerializableByteArray instead of ByteArray, maybe that's
when it gets more convenient?
> 
> If someone does any serialization and deserialization of a Vector today, it is broken.
This includes things like ByteArray and things like RemoteObject. IMO, this is a Flash Player
bug, but they won't let me fix that code. 
> 
> So, how does that work when someone sends a Vector over a RemoteObject call? Do they
now need to extend RemoteObject to ensure it serializes properly? Vector is a built in type.
Why should it work differently? That doesn't seem to track with what a user would expect of
the framework to me. So, personally, if I can serialize a String today into a ByteArray without
registration and I can serialize an Array without doing registration, then it seems to me
I should be able to serialize a Vector of Strings without doing registration of my own.
> 
> Incidentally, this is what we are talking about:
> 
> registerClassAlias( "Boolean", Boolean );
> registerClassAlias( "int", int );
> registerClassAlias( "Number", Number );
> registerClassAlias( "String", String );
> registerClassAlias( "uint", uint );
> 
> registerClassAlias( "Array", Array );
> registerClassAlias( "Date", Date );
> 
> registerClassAlias( "Vector", Vector );
> 
> I ran it in a loop (in debug mode) on my machine 10,000 times which took a total of 31ms.
I am not for inflating startup times either, but I am thinking the ~0.0031ms minus the loop
time (which I am guessing is the balance) might not be noticed in the average app.
> 
> Mike
> 

Please add this to the compiler. It's a very good suggestion and making the use of flex more
consistent.
The costs are very low so i don't see any problem, just advantages.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Arnoud Bos
Artim interactive
T +31 6 246 40 216
E arnoud@artim-interactive.nl




Mime
View raw message