Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: bada Developer Code Camp in Boston, Atlanta and Austin

Expand Messages
  • Alessandro Pace
    Ciao, passing an info from Samsung Bada: Alessandro Hi guys. Samsung Mobile Innovator team have been running a series of bada Code Camp in different cities in
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 4, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Ciao,

      passing an info from Samsung Bada:
      Alessandro

      Hi guys.
      Samsung Mobile Innovator team have been running a series of bada Code
      Camp in different cities in North America.
      There will be this Code Camp in three additional cities next week:
      Boston (3/7), Atlanta(3/8) and Austin (3/10)

      Please be informed that we’re estimating to ship more than 10 million
      bada devices within the half of this year, and Samsung Apps, our
      application store, has seen so much growth in terms of content and
      downloads.
      We would like your engineers to come and learn more about the bada
      platform by joining us at this full-day hands-on coding session in the
      city close to your office.
      Please feel free to forward the invite to other companies and
      developers you would like to invite as well.

      RSVP must be done:
      http://bosbadacodecamp.eventbrite.com/ (Boston 3/7)
      http://atlbadacodecamp.eventbrite.com/ (Atlanta 3/8)
      http://ausbadacodecamp.eventbrite.com/ (Austin 3/10)

      Hope you will be able to make it.
      Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

      Cheers,

      Sumi Lim
      Sr. Business Development Manager
      Mobile Communications Lab, Samsung Electronics
      2820 Orchard Parkway
      San Jose, CA 95134
      Work:  408 324 3784 I Mobile: 408 821 1028
      sumilim@...
      twitter/MobileInnovator





      --
      Alessandro Pace
      Mobile Architect
      Blogs: www.biskero.org www.flashlite4nokia.com www.flashlite4se.com
      Site: www.biskero.com
      Email:  biskero@...
      Skype/Gtalk/Foursquare/Twitter: biskero
      LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/biskero
      Forum Nokia Champion
      Samsung Mobile Innovator Star
      Manager of the Adobe Global Mobile and Devices User Group
      Adobe Community Professional Mobile
      Co-Founder of Mobile Monday Boston
    • Andrew Frost
      Hi all I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some optimization questions that we’ve been having recently, and see whether these suggestions really
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 14, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi all

         

        I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some optimization questions that we’ve been having recently, and see whether these suggestions really actually work..

         

        The idea is, when you’re not using a movieclip, you can move it way off-stage and then it wouldn’t be rendered by Flash Lite (3.1), hence improving the performance of the application. But does this actually work?

         

        Does anyone have any evidence or additional suggestions for this?

         

        thanks

             Andrew

         

      • Jesse Warden
        Setting visible to false and not putting things on the stage does have a marginal gain... but it s marginal. Because the cost of creation of objects in Flash
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 14, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Setting visible to false and not putting things on the stage does have a marginal gain... but it's marginal. Because the cost of creation of objects in Flash Lite is so high, most will object pool MovieClips and choose to hide them vs. destroy and re-create. Bitmaps are a little different. You can keep the BitmapData itself around, and just chuck the Bitmap showing it in the MovieClip. It still takes up the RAM, but isn't displayed. That has a major, positive impact.

          On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Andrew Frost <andrew.frost@...> wrote:
           

          Hi all

           

          I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some optimization questions that we’ve been having recently, and see whether these suggestions really actually work..

           

          The idea is, when you’re not using a movieclip, you can move it way off-stage and then it wouldn’t be rendered by Flash Lite (3.1), hence improving the performance of the application. But does this actually work?

           

          Does anyone have any evidence or additional suggestions for this?

           

          thanks

               Andrew

           


        • Jesse Warden
          Another thing you could try that I haven t is setting it s scrollRect to a 1x1 pixel amount whilst off-stage. ... Another thing you could try that I haven t is
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 14, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Another thing you could try that I haven't is setting it's scrollRect to a 1x1 pixel amount whilst off-stage.

            On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Jesse Warden <jesse.warden@...> wrote:
            Setting visible to false and not putting things on the stage does have a marginal gain... but it's marginal. Because the cost of creation of objects in Flash Lite is so high, most will object pool MovieClips and choose to hide them vs. destroy and re-create. Bitmaps are a little different. You can keep the BitmapData itself around, and just chuck the Bitmap showing it in the MovieClip. It still takes up the RAM, but isn't displayed. That has a major, positive impact.


            On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Andrew Frost <andrew.frost@...> wrote:
             

            Hi all

             

            I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some optimization questions that we’ve been having recently, and see whether these suggestions really actually work..

             

            The idea is, when you’re not using a movieclip, you can move it way off-stage and then it wouldn’t be rendered by Flash Lite (3.1), hence improving the performance of the application. But does this actually work?

             

            Does anyone have any evidence or additional suggestions for this?

             

            thanks

                 Andrew

             



          • Darren
            Also, at one point, you had to move the object way, way off-stage for it to not be included in the render cycle. So if x = 250 on a 240-wide screen, it would
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 14, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Also, at one point, you had to move the object way, way off-stage for it
              to not be included in the render cycle. So if x = 250 on a 240-wide
              screen, it would still be rendered; you had to set x = 10000 (or
              something similarly high) to gain any benefit.

              This pre-dated FL 3.1, so I'm not sure if this was fixed/addressed in
              that version. But it's worth investigating.

              Darren

              On 11-03-14 8:45 AM, Jesse Warden wrote:
              > Setting visible to false and not putting things on the stage does have a
              > marginal gain... but it's marginal. Because the cost of creation of
              > objects in Flash Lite is so high, most will object pool MovieClips and
              > choose to hide them vs. destroy and re-create. Bitmaps are a little
              > different. You can keep the BitmapData itself around, and just chuck the
              > Bitmap showing it in the MovieClip. It still takes up the RAM, but isn't
              > displayed. That has a major, positive impact.
              >
              > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Andrew Frost <andrew.frost@...
              > <mailto:andrew.frost@...>> wrote:
              >
              > Hi all
              >
              > I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some optimization
              > questions that we’ve been having recently, and see whether these
              > suggestions really actually work..
              >
              > The idea is, when you’re not using a movieclip, you can move it way
              > off-stage and then it wouldn’t be rendered by Flash Lite (3.1),
              > hence improving the performance of the application. But does this
              > actually work?
              >
              > Does anyone have any evidence or additional suggestions for this?
              >
              > thanks
              >
              > Andrew
              >
              >
              >
            • Mark Doherty
              Hi, This was certainly true of Flash Lite 2.x, we noticed it in our R&D whilst creating the Samsung D600 UI. We didn t determine where the tipping point was,
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 15, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi,

                This was certainly true of Flash Lite 2.x, we noticed it in our R&D whilst creating the Samsung D600 UI.

                We didn't determine where the tipping point was, but if you were to look under the bonnet of that interface, you'd find a number of MovieClips sitting at .x=-1000.

                The older VM had some optimization in it that we couldn't determine easily, in that the rendering queue would only include items closer to the stage than -1000.  No changes were introduced to fix it and it also had a nice benefit, so I presume it's there still in FL3.x.

                As Jesse points out, the cost of creation is sometimes high in Flash Lite.  Though this is less of an issue these days, you'd have to be working on something pretty low-end to see a difference.  So we recommend that you removeClip on anything not being displayed, unless you're really stuck.

                Remember that Flash Lite 3.1 also supports some of the bitmap data class, which can bring significant performance increases at the cost of large amounts of RAM.


                Mark Doherty
                Adobe



                > To: FlashLite@yahoogroups.com
                > From: darren@...
                > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:02:20 -0500
                > Subject: Re: [FlashLite] Optimizing FL performance - asset management
                >
                > Also, at one point, you had to move the object way, way off-stage for it
                > to not be included in the render cycle. So if x = 250 on a 240-wide
                > screen, it would still be rendered; you had to set x = 10000 (or
                > something similarly high) to gain any benefit.
                >
                > This pre-dated FL 3.1, so I'm not sure if this was fixed/addressed in
                > that version. But it's worth investigating.
                >
                > Darren
                >
                > On 11-03-14 8:45 AM, Jesse Warden wrote:
                > > Setting visible to false and not putting things on the stage does have a
                > > marginal gain... but it's marginal. Because the cost of creation of
                > > objects in Flash Lite is so high, most will object pool MovieClips and
                > > choose to hide them vs. destroy and re-create. Bitmaps are a little
                > > different. You can keep the BitmapData itself around, and just chuck the
                > > Bitmap showing it in the MovieClip. It still takes up the RAM, but isn't
                > > displayed. That has a major, positive impact.
                > >
                > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:13 AM, Andrew Frost <andrew.frost@...
                > > <mailto:andrew.frost@...>> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi all
                > >
                > > I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on some optimization
                > > questions that we’ve been having recently, and see whether these
                > > suggestions really actually work..
                > >
                > > The idea is, when you’re not using a movieclip, you can move it way
                > > off-stage and then it wouldn’t be rendered by Flash Lite (3.1),
                > > hence improving the performance of the application. But does this
                > > actually work?
                > >
                > > Does anyone have any evidence or additional suggestions for this?
                > >
                > > thanks
                > >
                > > Andrew
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlashLite/
                >
                > <*> Your email settings:
                > Individual Email | Traditional
                >
                > <*> To change settings online go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlashLite/join
                > (Yahoo! ID required)
                >
                > <*> To change settings via email:
                > FlashLite-digest@yahoogroups.com
                > FlashLite-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > FlashLite-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.