|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Peer assisted networking
I don't have time to do it right now, but somebody should add something about section 7.5 of Adobe Flash 10.1 EULA that talks of a feature like BTDNA, where peers connect to save servers' bandwidth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Anatomy of AIR
Important distinctions between AIR apps for desktops and mobile devices
This distinction is not easily found on Adobe's website either, but e.g. mentioned here: "You can use the AIR SDK and Flash Professional, Flash Builder, or another ActionScript development tool to build AIR apps for mobile devices. HTML-based mobile AIR apps are not currently supported." http://help.adobe.com/en_US/air/build/WSfffb011ac560372f-5d0f4f25128cc9cd0cb-8000.html
Competition with Silverlight
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion in the article that AIR doesn't compete with Silverlight. WPF/E enables offline applications. Also, the Silverlight article has a sourced statement saying Silerlight competes with JavaFX. There are sources comparing AIR to WPF, however. (E.g.,  ) Perhaps this statement should be changed to list WPF as competition, with a shorter aside about Silverlight when a source is found. --joeOnSunset 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Silverlight does not enable offline applications the way AIR does. Not anymore than IE userData does. True, Silverlight isostorage does give persistent local storage capability, but it is limited to 1 MB per URL. So, it is more like a scractpad that local mirror. Neither does it include sync capabilities. --soum talk 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I see. But doesn't this have more to do with how the product is positioned in the marketplace than its actual capabilities anyway? "Competitors" don't have to provide the same things. They only have to be positioned similarly, in such a way that the success of one might detract from the other, right? Or, better than that, for our purposes, they need to have some weighty sources that say they are or are not competitors. :-) --joeOnSunset 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would the average person ever want to have Adobe Air on their computer?
Hi. I'm not a computer geek - but I do some basic things like programme Excel with VBA (very very basic VBA). I came to the Wikipedia page for Adobe Air to figure out if I need it or not - because Adobe seems to always want me to have it, and it seems to pop up on my computer from time to time. Anyway, I came her to find out just exactly what Adobe Air is, and how it would affect my internet experience. Reading this entry, I am still not sure just exactly what Adobe Air does of if I should want it. It appears (from the wording) to be something of interest to programmers. So, why would the average Joe Lunchbucket want this on their PC? This Wikipedia entry does not answer that (at least not clearly). If there is an Adobe person reading this, I would appreciate it if you could put something at the top of this Wikipedia entry that would allow all average people like me to immediately figure out what this application is about, and whether I need it, or should want it, i.e. PLEASE PUT IT IN VERY VERY BASIC NON-TECHNICAL ENGLISH. Look, I'm dumb, okay? And I'm not the only person like that. At the moment, without being able to figure out exactly what it does, or why I need it, I will continue to uninstall it when it shows up on my PC. I mean, I can immediately understand why I might want Adobe Shockwave on my computer (I can listen to audio on webpages that use it). Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your recent edits to Adobe AIR. I wanted to explain in more detail on your user talk so you knew why:
- The paragraphs you moved into "architecture" don't belong in architecture. Architecture should discuss the way AIR is designed/works, not what you can do with it
- Renaming the "Frameworks" section to "ActionScript" is nonsensical
- The sentence "Applications built without the framework depend entirely on the developer's own skills and artistic abilities, and are commonly known as "pure ActionScript" projects" is extremely unencyclopedic and defines a neologism with no source. Perhaps you are proud to make apps without AIR, but it doesn't belong in the article. Furthermore, the claim is nonsense - AIR does not include any features that reduce the "artistic abilities" required of the developer, and much of the functionality in AIR is not reproducible in vanilla AS3 so "skills" have nothing to do with it.
- I disagree with your changes in wording under "AIR Native Extensions", particularly the change to "not yet available", which falsely implies that Adobe is planning to implement every feature from every ANE at some point in the future.
- Agree with some of your changes, disagree with others so have made improvements in the article to reflect.
- Some of your points are fine, accepted. However you put too much stress on ANEs and AIR Gamepad when they are both minor features of the platform. Updated.
- And about "pure actionscript" being non-encyclopedic, perhaps you should just do a little google search before making such claims. Refs added.
- "Features" or "Architecture", whatever you call the section doesn't matter. The contents are similar so they should be merged. Edited.
- No reason to remove Scout. A new and first-class tool built by Adobe specifically for FP and AIR. Re-added.
- My section on "ActionScript" provides a complete overview on the methods to build an AIR app, with pure AS or with the Flex framework. They are both completely different methods and both have pros/cons. Learn up on the subject if you are unaware of these styles. Some components can only be used in pure AS projects, and some only work in Flex projects. Reworded and reorganized.
- Reason for "Development" section being called "ActionScript": AS and JS are two contradictory methods to develop applications for AIR. Therefore most of the info in the development section like 3D and ANEs apply only to AS3 since such functions can only be accessed from AS3. See if the new organization is easier to understand.
- Agree about the "artistic abilities" sentence. Preserved.
- Agree about "not yet available". Preserved.
- Rewrote the "Features" section intro to remove marketing-speak.
- In response to : "Perhaps you are proud to make apps without AIR". I agree that section was worded in a confusing manner. Pure AS3 apps actually mean apps that are built without the Flex framework, not without AIR. Restructured under the "ActionScript applications" section.
- You are welcome to improve the wording and content, but please don't revert entire sections due to minor issues/defects.
- It's a stretch to call an SDK software. You are placing way too much emphasis on discussing Flex, which is a separate project. AIR is not merely an add-on for Flex, it is a separate framework but there is an SDK that combines both of them in addition to the standalone AIR SDK.
- There is no need to explain that users can edit ActionScript in a text editor. That is possible with every programming language, and furthermore is a property of AS3, not AIR
- There is no need for the "ActionScript" header. It is a poorly chosen title for a header (as it is also about Flex), the way the section is written falsely implies users have to choose between Flex and AS3 (AS3 is still used for writing functional code in Flex applications) and the section repeats information that is already covered elsewhere.
- The publishing section was mostly redundant with the availability section directly after; I removed most of the publishing section and merged the table into the availability section.
- Some guy (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the SDK/software change, and you've re-written the SDKs section which is fine. Just add refs. And links.
- The section does not falsely imply that Flex apps cannot contain AS3. The section starts with "ActionScript-based Adobe AIR applications". Anyways, I let it be deleted but brought back some of the old "pure AS3" stuff into the article.
- The publishing section was not totally redundant. I re-added some of the points, specifically relating to the Captive Runtime.
- Although some of your changes are annoying, you seem to be highly proficient and non-argumentative. And most of your points are valid. I've had much worse arguments on WP. Thanks for your cooperation and whatever else you bring to the table.
- BTW, something must be done about the JS section. Its a total misfit. I kept adding "ActionScript" as a category heading simply to differentiate between JS and AS development for AIR. Any ideas?
- Wonderfl (reply) 12:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive needs cleanup
Some sections from this month are already archived at Talk:Adobe AIR/Archive 1 while other sections from 2007 remain on this page. It's not clear why this was done, but requires cleanup and sorting. Dekimasuよ! 22:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some done, but the archive is still out of order. Dekimasuよ! 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I created an archive to get the irrelevant content out of the way, its not a historical archive. Many of the sections are still relevant and valid, and need to be dressed in the article. Sections such as Silverlight, Google Gears, Examples, Anatomy of AIR, etc. The only sections that are not relavant any more are the ones that deal with the naming. Since the article has just been renamed thanks to you. -- Wonderfl (reply) 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just moved some of the sections still relevant back into the talk page. I hope its not an issue? Just trying to preserve some of the valuable comments raised by the community, since Adobe AIR gets very little attention. -- Wonderfl (reply) 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)