Re: [Gnash-dev] About AMF (still technical)

[Rob Savoye]

strk wrote:

> I'm not planning to change any RTMP related code, still too ignorant 
> about it anyway.

  Which is my point. But it sure seems a huge waste of time to implement
new code when there is *tested* code that already works. It also seems a 
shame to implement a new code base that ignores much of what this code 
actually will need to support in the future.

> Can you give here a complete list of Element types that do NOT match 
> with as_value ones ?

  http://wiki.gnashdev.org/AMF. element.h lists them all too. There is
actually documentation on the wiki about RTMP, AMF, SharedObject, 
LocalConnection, etc...

> Great, other differences ?

  You can determine this by looking at rtmp.h and element.h.:-)

> I also looked at remoting, and Jason looked at SharedObjects.

  Right, two very small use cases. Please try to think of the bigger
picture. For me, this is supporting groupware style applications, where
AMF and RTMP is used for video conferencing, shared white boards, etc...

> I belive LocalConnection and RTMP are the only cases not considered
> by the "element_is_not_needed_here" party.

  True remoting will require Element, as it'll be using RTMP as well,
and sending//receiving complex objects. The remoting openstreetmap.org
is very simple, just sending a few numbers back and forth, so it's not a
good usage case.

        - rob -