http://www.experts-exchange.com/Software/Photos_Graphics/Web_Graphics/Macromedia_Flash/ActionScript/A_2107-20-Tips-to-Optimize-your-ActionScript.html

I recently stumbled upon this post
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Softwar … cript.html
which explains how to optimize as3 code via very simple rules.

Aparat offers bytecode optimization. But I can´t find any information about what that really means.

I am working on a quite big project right now and currently I am searching for further possible tweaks to it.

So are these tips even relevant if I let Aparat do it´s bytecode magic anyway?

Thanks in advance

Stephan

A.

I had problem with your script and php mod security:

ModSecurity: Multipart parsing error: Multipart: Invalid Content-Disposition header (-12): form-data; name=”image_file”;
filename=”screenshot.jpg”screenshot.jpg”

The problem is with the filename duplication: screenshot.jpg”screenshot.jpg

Solution:
bytes = ‘Content-Disposition: form-data; name=”‘+uploadDataFieldName+’”; filename=”‘ + fileName + ”; // removed quote from and of line between ”
And I had to comment out this line:
//postData.writeUTFBytes(fileName);

Is it a proper solution? What you think?

Best,
Andrew

But many code sets try to manage this problem. For wider displays, more info is shown; for narrower, less; and so on. It appears impressively on all screens. The programmer has to program a bit more functionality in order to create this effect, which does not adhere to the “write once” concept. But it does emphasize my point, I think: the programmer is giving the handful of design patterns to code towards, without knowing at all what the actual device is. Practically, he or she has to write a bunch of code, but philosophically never moves from WORE.

This is not respect for the app environ. It is done in complete ignorance of the device, and the programmer would prefer it that way. As impressive as any particular screen/environ may be, the programmer has to obstinately refuse to acknowledge how awesome and special it is. Instead, the programmer is thinking about functionality in general, and programming toward that.

One other point, about ‘consistent user experience’. I assume that this consistency is device defined, not designed by the programmer. The style, skin, timing — or whatever that consistency may be — is the default interactive environ on that device. The programmer should be given a set of tools that accesses this consistency. That is, a “button” looks like whatever it does on a system, but the programmer just creates a ButtonObject, and changes the text and result. It’s only in stepping away from the default interactive environ that programmers start to make things inconsistent. So I am suggesting that to actually achieve a consistent experience requires both the framework and the programmer to adhere to the goal of WORE, in the sense of making the assumption that the framework will make it right for each environ . . . even if in practice that is not achievable.

$fp = fopen( ‘file.txt’, ‘wb’ );
fwrite( $fp, $GLOBALS[ 'HTTP_RAW_POST_DATA' ] );
fclose( $fp );

Thanks in Advance

You want to reuse parts of your code but you should always try and make sure to achieve a consistent user experience. That’s why some people agree and that is our philosophy with Hiddenwood. Of course the actual code follows “write once run anywhere” (sort of) but you have to give designers and developers the power to do custom platform specific stuff.