| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Comments:
<0> there is no 'or'
<1> have the majority loaded
<0> :P
<2> bar10der, what stops you from keeping them on a DB and the client doing queries
<1> the faster i can communicate though, the less i have to load
<1> nothing, but what if a query returns 1000000000 recores
<1> records
<2> bar10der, why would it, would someone sit down and read them all 10000000 records?
<2> at ONCE
<0> well - some people have alot of time to kill..
<0> heh
<1> you wouldn't be reading them, you would be visualizing them somehow
<0> make it an option - someone will use it - eventually
<0> >_<
<0> lol
<2> bar10der, when I search something in Google it says 345 983 pages with my word, but I don't see 345 983 pages, come on
<1> we're not google
<2> bar10der, well then explain me what do you show
<1> but we've been called "google for scientists and spies" =]
<0> i think he's just pointing out standard concepts of information delivery
<2> that requires millions of records on the client, what is it, text, pictures, charts
<1> non-text data
<2> bar10der, ok non-text data, is it magical undescribable data or .. :)?
<2> it can be a chart or a graph or
<2> what is it>?
<1> i don't understand....what is the data or how is it being displayed?
<0> its a bird ... its a plane... no - its superjoint!
<0> brb
<3> damn
<3> i want a superjoint
<3> :(
<1> forget what the data is or what i'm doing with it. again, i'm just asking if anyone has suggestions on super-fast flash communication
<4> !find rules
<2> bar10der, both
<2> bar10der, you're looking to a solution for the wrong problem
<2> bar10der, when you design a server-client communication you don't want p***ing arround 1 GB of info every second
<1> or do you mean the wrong wolution to the problem
<2> you want smart design vs dumb design
<2> no I mean wrong problem
<2> you think your problem is speed and capacity
<2> but your problem is bad design requiring that speed and capacity
<1> no ****
<1> dude, we already p*** m***ive amounts of data back and forth
<2> so I'm asking what are you doing so I can offer you another design that just doesn't need that
<2> p*** it
<1> client -> server & visa versa
<4> Is there a better way of having a color change from left to right rather then just stretch a shape with the new color over the old one?
<2> but we are in #flash, and #flash is supposed to show interface to people, and people can't read m***ive amount of info at once, instead it's presented to them simplified and in chunks that is suitable for a human-machine interface
<1> you're not reading it, you're just looking at something that describes it visually
<1> like a treemap for example
<2> when I browse a photo album I see thumbnails and clicking a thumbnail shows me a photo. It's not like the page loads first all the photos huge and tries to make thumbs out of them
<1> treemaps can represent millions of objects
<2> bar10der, can you show millions of objects larger than a pixel on a computer screen?
<5> does anyone know how one gets granted more ink on drawball.com?
<1> with alpha channels and colors yes
<2> bar10der, well you see this is why I can't help, you're being totally cryptic and not explaining what you're showing at all.
<1> again, that's not what i'm asking
<1> jesuz
<2> Feel free to alpha blend the hell out of those millions of records
<1> answer me this. do you know of any flash communication that is faster than web services?
<2> flash is a smart client with limited processing abilities
<1> is that a no?
<2> bar10der, web services aren't slow because of web services but because Internet has bandwidth and lag limitations. You can talk with less lag to a flash only if you host it in an exe wrapper that p***es info to and from it
<1> holy **** man
<1> forget it
<2> i.e. not from a web page
<1> i'll take that as a no
<2> take it as a no
<2> if you wanna run it from a webpage
<1> just so you know, web services are incredibly slow
<1> comparitively speaking
<2> bar10der, web services FYI is just a basic XML protocol that runs over HTTP sockets
<2> it's not fast or slow, the socket can be fast or slow
<2> the protocol can be efficient or not efficient, but that's another matter
<2> that's like saying "hey TXT files are slow"
<2> doesn't make sense
<6> wow that drawball is ****ing awesome
<7> txt files are ****ing slow.
<2> shableep :)
<1> talking via web services, vs. byte serialization, is INCREDIBLY slow
<1> like, 100x slower
<2> bar10der, ok I can confirm you're talking out of your *** right now
<1> how can you confirm that
<7> i wish my *** could talk =\
<2> bar10der, I have enough proof in my #flash channel log
<1> so prove it
<7> my *** talking algorythms say so.
<2> bar10der, if you mean XML is large and inefficient, then sure, but "slow" how the hell is it slow? what "slows it down"
<7> it's clear in the quantum vibrations.
<2> also what the HELL means "100x" slower, is your math from another dimension?
<7> the dimension x. with shredder and brainiac
<1> 100x means 100 times
<7> i think that's where 100x comes from.
<2> bar10der, ok I'll refine my reaction: "what the HELL means "100 times slower" is your math from another dimension?"
<2> meaning, it's far from being 100 times slower
<1> like i said suv, comparitively speaking. compared to byte serialization, web services is slow. roughly 100 times slower in fact
<1> what are you like 12?
<2> you know I don't know what you're doing, but I have the feeling you're not experienced in doing it
<2> good luck
<7> bar10der, what are you like... 18?
<7> 80?
<7> 45?
<7> why are we guessing ages
<2> shableep, it's not funny anymore
<2> shableep, if it ever was
<8> alright kids
<8> dont make me get prometh in here
<7> i'm just surprized theres such a heated arguement.
<2> SupaShaD, better get him, before my head has exploded
<7> didn't mean to be an ***. tho... it happens =\
<2> in conclusion I'll add this: Keyhole Earth which is a virtual Earth model with superdetailed satelite photos, has a photo database of hundreds of terrabytes. Yet, I can download their Earth and browse around it watching the photos in full details without downloading terrabytes of data through my ****ty connection. Why? Because it's properly designed to load what I wanna see at the moment. If a server-client application developer can't ....
<2> ... understand this, I guess there's no point in trying to convince him otherwise
<1> you only see a certain amount at a certain time. what if you wanted to see the entire earth close up in google earth?
<9> what
<2> bar10der, I can
<1> not close up, all at once
<2> bar10der, the entire earth database is mipmapped
<2> I can zoom out and see the whole earth
<2> or zoom in and see some car under a tree
<2> think about that
<1> right, that's not what i said.
<7> bar10der, are you suggesting to faltten the world
<7> and somehow see the entire thing
<8> alllllllright
<7> at full res?
<1> why not?
<8> i coulda sworn it had ended earlier..but you always have to have the last say suv4x4 ?
<7> because columbus proved the world isn't flat
<8> let's drop it, because obviously this topic is only leading to arguments between you guys :)
<1> but what if you wanted to visualize it all at once, as being flat?
<2> bar10der, because your screen doesn't have the resolution to show it at "full res", it only makes sense to cover what your screen can show, in my case 1280x1024 pixels, so no point in having more texels per pixel on my screen than one
<1> or visualize some other graph that had data from every point
<2> bar10der, unless you have unlimited screen resolution from Mars
<1> no, you're wron suv. we ALREADY have this.....i just want to move it to flash
<1> not the flat earth concept, visualizing millions of things at once
<1> you answered my question with a no, we're done
<7> m***ive amounts of data can limit any system of any versatility and effciency
<1> thanks for that shableep
<1> i wasn't aware =]
<2> let me be wrong. but on a 800x600 screen, if EVERY pixel is a separate object from your dataset, this means you can physically show 480 000 objects at once in full screen. Means you can't physically show AT ONCE more information than this
<2> means something in your logic is flawed, and means you preload more than you need to show at a certain time
<2> or you don't mipmap it properly
<2> i.e. fractalize it
<1> you're thinking 2d suv
<2> bar10der, the 3D earth is 3D
<7> well, 3d is converted onto a 2d surface. so you're left with 2d...
<2> and it has layers with buildings and paths on top of it you can turn on/off
<1> forget the earth
<7> but i live here =\
<9> lol
<2> forget the earth, forget google, forget years of experience in client-server logic, forget common sense
Return to
#flash
or
Go to some related
logs:
#bsd
#windowsxp
laterile
#cisco
#visualbasic
#computers
sitexec
wrxstipse3d
#sex
#netbsd
|
|