Slashdot Mirror
Controlling An Embedded Device Using Flash
JimCricket writes "Art & Logic has just released a web server toolkit based on the open source GoAhead WebServer. The cool part is that it can communicate with Flash presentations using XML-RPC. The idea is to create GUI's to control embedded devices using Flash in addition to (or instead of) HTML. They've posted a little demo running on Windows, but in the real world the server would run on a low-power device. Seems like a great idea for the embedded world, given that Flash interfaces _can_ be very low-memory (as long as Flash designers stick to the vector-based graphics and ActionScript)."
as long as Flash designers stick to the vector-based graphics and ActionScript I honestly can't remember those days.
"You laugh at me because I am different. I laugh at you because you're all the same." --Vick Imbornoni
...would listen to its customers. We run one of Germany's largest flash-based web sites. We are happy with Flash and what it can do, but we encounter little bugs and annoyances every now and then.
Macromedia doesn't fix them.
To make things worse, the German product manager basically tells us "we don't have to fix this. We don't care. Without us, your site wouldn't exist. You better be grateful."
If only there was an alternative to Flash to escape this.
(Yadda, yadda, closed source, I know, I know. Trouble is, there is no alternative to Flash at this time.)
the first thing i thought when i read this was "controlling blah blah using sector-programmable EEPROM"... sigh; been in the hardware side too long.
side point: flash programs themselves are small and neat -- but the actual client (that reads, processes, and displays the animations and all that) always have seemed quite processor intensive to me, though... so besides being fancy and neat -- i am sure there are more power-saving interfaces you can use if that's really what you are after.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Its 4:24 in the morning and this article has been up for about 10 minutes, but already the demo link dosn't work. The site must have new what was coming and killed itself before anything happened.
Requires Macromedia Flash Player 6
on the little demo page. Too bad I removed FLASH due to it's abuse by web advertisers. I hope Macromedia will put out a player that can be set by default to not play flash. HINT HINT! I'm not going to install it to watch a demo and remove it for the rest of my browsing. Is a play button too much to ask?
The truth shall set you free!
it can communicate via xml. that is good, but not really special. if it can communicate via xml, of course it can communicate with flash.
so... what's it about?
--
making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
I am a home theater addict and have been very disturbed by the fact that the home theater industry moves just as fast as the computer industry but you can't upgrade your components unless you get something from manufacturers like Krell, Meridian, Theta Digital.
So... many of us are using what we call Home Theater PC's (HTPC) to play DVD's in Progressive scan mode to feed our DLP projectors, using MP3/Ogg/Wav files for our home audio collections, HDTV decoder cards, etc. The problem is that all this stuff needs to be easily controlled with a remote. Many people have designed interfaces using flash/webserver and they tie it into an IR controll system. Maybe this will make it easier to hide the computer-ness of our HTPC and make them more appliance-like.
If interested, avsforum.com has some nice forums for discussion in the realm of HTPC's.
shut up, you Finniger.
fyi:
/
macromedia has a mobile device development center for flash
http://www.macromedia.com/desdev/mobile/
and there is this book:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735711771
The company I work for have been mixing php and flash for quite some time to achieve the same effects. I has always felt a little hacky to mix php and flash since flash doesn't really like to talk to a database. Hopefully this framework will help out in making our solutions more clean.
I haven't read their entire description of their framework yet (I am going to) but it sounds very promising. Having /. propose new software packages for my company is actually quite nice :)
The real advantages here aren't so much in the "hey neat" category, but in the application of this technology. Not all of us are all that efficient at gathering information from text logs or what have you - many of us are more visual. If I could have a small flash application based on this technology that used images or even sounds to say, help me visualize the load on each of my servers from home, great! Instead of browsing through several megs (or gigs) of logs, I just look for the image of the server on fire. It won't eliminate the need for "down and dirty" work, but I can certainly think of many examples of where it could minimize it.
I've always though of Flash as being a high-overhead, annoying, processor intensive thing. Most people heavily abuse it (for example, website intros), so, in my own mind, it has no legitimate use. Sure, it's cute to play "slap the monkey" once in a while, but I'd be hard pressed to think of it as having real-world uses. This is an interesting perspective. It's easy to forget the inherent efficiency of it's vector-based engine.
flash for an interface is just a stupid idea.
why goto the trouble/expense of including a vfd or a full color lcd. then emulating all the things flash needs to run. vs making a custom lcd/vfd display with your buttons on it (even if it looks just like the flash) and use that.
oh morphing interfaces you say. the answer... do we really need a remote control with skins. do we need a tv that has some silly panasonic movie running on it all day.
Look at all the crap thats gotten into car stereo head units these days. I mean the rice-boys love it but i still cant find a decent nice sounding stereo system for under 500 bux that has all the outputs and FUNCTIONAL abilities i want. Instead to get (rca) instead of line leads off a device you have to goto the $700 (cdn) range and end up gettin these stupid pixel usually like 320x100 displays and they distract the hell out of you while driving... I DONT NEED A GRAPHIC EQUALIZER...
oh yes you can turn the crap off but at the end of the day you've paid an extra 200 for the stupid display.
leave hardware alone, keep it away from macromedia and microsoft. embedded linux is nice because its just so barebones simple when it gets to that level. flash would seriously gum it up.
keep hardware devices simple. provide functionality not flash. its not a website they're not sitting there for the purpose of that site. With hardware you want to use the damned thing not have it look pretty.
The ONLY exception might be in the intergrated appliance market eg a microwave that has a vfd display that is a picture on the wall for example (like in anti-trust the movie).
in which case however flash still isnt the answer. a custom application is. faster better and most importantly designed to do the job specifically.
flash really is bloat ware when it comes to the stuff needed to properly impliment it and short of a specialty product from macromedia trying to adapt it is just plain silly.
The UI seems like a good idea, and taking advantage of FLash is a good move. Hovewer, I think HTML just interfaces better with XML.
We're Doomed
Even I could make it to the Finnish line before you would. "Lunix"? Bah!
Well, to be honest, I hate flash. It's bloated (compared to plaintext) and it's more or less useless and doesn't do anygood to web pages. Yeah, plain old HTML2.0 with tables would be enough for me. Flash might be good for some gadget, but think of it again... Are you really sure you want to stick it in everything?
;> :))
I have a bad feeling about this
The Sig, the sig
Note that it doesn't matter whether the Flash player is smaller than the Java runtime because that part of it runs in the web browser, not the embedded system. From the point of view of the embedded system, what matters is the footprint of the Flash or application specific class files, and Java is probably competitive there.
For a lightweight interface system that talks XML-RPC/SOAP and is easy to port to other platforms.
It's written in Java, but natively compiles on Linux/Win32. None of the speed problems of Java (thanks to a different design tack with Box rendering).
Of course, the obvious advantage over Flash is the fact it's open source (GPL).
They wouldn't have done this unless there were some good reasons to do so. The Flash engine is small and runs on embedded devices due to Macromedia's tireless attempts to get it everywhere they can. A simple Flash player and Flash application can come in under 500k and there is no browser on earth that can match this. Flash supports XML calls although it doesn't validate them. This idea neglects a security model as Flash doesn't have one with respect to the server so I hope these guys are not planning on doing stock quotes or transactions or something like that. The Flash interface is a good idea on precisely those devices and may yet gain more acceptance than Flash in the browser ever did, because the browser is really meant for HTML and nothing else.
I was thinking about something like this recently. However, I envisioned it using XUL/XPCOM. If Moz/Netscape were as prolific as they were 4 years ago, this sort of tech could take over the world.
That's a baby's attitude - learning to move the fingers and put the foot into the mouth. Hhhmmm - tasty!
When Flash is used to control micro-devices, I'm going to use assembler for movie-making.
Please switch on the brain before programming.
Problem 1: Flash is a very common kind of memory chip used in embedded devices. In fact, it's a multi-billion dollar industry. And it has nothing to do with Shockwave or Macromedia.
Problem 2: There's no embedded computer in the example - it's a Windows box.
The point of this story was to illustrate the use of Flash in building user interfaces for remote web-based control, not for use as a primary interface on the device itself.
It seems a good enough idea to develop a single, friendly interface to be used within embedded systems - you'd be able to put it on one standard chip, interfaces for all your devices could be pretty similar, they could be customisable, and so on and so forth.
What a lot of people seem to think is that Flash is an unnecessarily bloaty platform for such interfaces. To a large extent, that's true. But what the average end user 'wants', above a friendly, functional interface, is one that looks good. I'm trying to avoid using the phrase "looks flash", but it is just too appropriate here.
Ultimately, it would be very nice if the interface of choice were not Flash, and there will be many others who could enlighten everyone as to what the better option would be. It doesn't matter if things aren't standardised across the board either, but I don't think I'd like to see things go the way of Flash at the moment - apart from anything else, I find anything that's controllable with a keyboard - even if it is just shortcut keys for menus - far easier and quicker to use, and I've not seen that implemented in Flash.
Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
"Source code licenses sell for $9895 and include 40 hours of co-engineering and 90 days of e-mail support."
I'm having a hard time seeing the impact on my life.
embedded system programmers shouldn't make the interfaces anyway. interface designers should, and they are much more likely to feel comfortable with flash.
the reason why people can't set the clock on their vcr is that technical people make the interfaces, not interface designers.
--
making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
the reason why people can't set the clock on their vcr is that technical people make the interfaces, not interface designers.
Yeah, right: if your VCR were designed by interface designers, like Microsoft Word, it would have 200 buttons, be bigger than the TV set, crash with regularity, and cost $500. The reason why VCR clocks are hard to set is because there isn't much room for buttons or much money for fancy software. It's called an "engineering tradeoff". Get used to it. If you want a better VCR, pay more: the high end ones are simpler to use or set themselves automatically.
that's if you hire a bad interface designer. see below.
The reason why VCR clocks are hard to set is because there isn't much room for buttons or much money for fancy software. It's called an "engineering tradeoff". Get used to it.
my cheapo vcr has an on screen menu. there is plenty of room.
If you want a better VCR, pay more: the high end ones are simpler to use or set themselves automatically.
they are simpler to use because they were designed by better interface designers.
the vcr clock thing was supposed to be an example. it seemed to be common knowledge people can't set the clock on their vcrs. maybe it's not true. i hope it's not true.
the good thing about using flash for interfaces is that interface designers can implement the interfaces. at least if it's not a dynamic interface, you don't need real programmers. that way you avoid communication problems and the designer knows what's possible, what has certain advantages/disadvatnages and so on.
engineers often even write the manuals.
--
making up good sigs is a hard thing to do.
I'm sorry, I'm an IT guy...I know how to change the clock on my VCR. It blinks on 0:00 anyway and you know why? I don't care, I just use it for playback anyway and each time there is a power outage (we recently got quite a few) I'd have to set it back to the right time again. Not to mention summer and winter time. No thanks, let it blink... (Same for the clock on my HiFi btw...never understood why they can't put a rechargable battery in those things)
Back in my young days I couldn't understand the blinking 0:00 phenomenon, now I do...
You know, of course, that several games on Playstation have used Flash for the interface - the bits of the interface like game saving and menu selection that don't require a 3d engine to run.
The rationale being that Flash is simple and works out-of-the box for creating interactive screns of this type. Once the actual designs are done it is literally an afternoon's work to tie the screens and buttons together. The Playstation Flash Player communicates with the the game engine through an API and so can be integfrated with any game relatively quickly.
technoshamanic resistance within hyper-transgressive ontology
Hi --
I'm the Chief Architect of the DMF. The problem that we find with Java is the same one encountered by everyone using client-side Java: Write Once, Debug Everywhere. Flash works identically on every platform, and the files are significantly smaller.
Of course, since it's using XML-RPC under the hood, we don't care what language sits at the other end. I did all my testing using Python's xmlrpclib, and xmlrpc.com lists client implementations in just about every language that's widely used (except COBOL and FORTRAN...)
You want to talk to a device running our DMF from a Java (or C++, or LISP) client, that's cool. Dave Winer could control his router from inside Radio Userland. Whatever.
The important thing (to me, as a designer) is that we've implemented a clean, open, simple protocol that lets us and our customers build richer monitor and control interfaces than we can using just HTML.
dook, dook, dook!
I'd think that if you want this to be a low-bandwidth interface, XML-RPC is about the last thing you'd want to use. What's wrong with good old fasioned URL-formatted parameters?
I mean,
<?xml version="blah"?>
<methodCall>
<methodName>eat_cheese</methodName>
<params>
<param>
<name>amount</name>
<value>lots</value>
</param>
</params>
</methodCall>
just seems like overkill to me when you could just do:
action=eat_cheese&amount=lots
I guess I'm just behind the times...
Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
I doubt you'll find a development environment that is as easy to use and as quick to learn as Flash is for mocking up applications and interfaces.
They've posted a little demo running on Windows, but in the real world the server would run on a low-power device.
So this was a real-world test? I'm confused...
Yes, it's time to bash Flash some more. Not only are designers all over the world controlled by Flash and convinced that every website should be a two minute cartoon, it can control embedded devices too. I use it to control about a dozen Down Syndrome kids I have locked in the basement. They get so happy when I show them the kewl intro clips I make for etailers across the globe. Right now I'm using a server I built from Legos, and running Debian 3.0 with Mozlla 1.1 no less, to showcase that great innovation that is Flash. You don't need to read, I've got ear-splitting sound bites and blinking lights that will provide more information than any HTML or XML document could deliver. Hell, judging by this site, since no one can spell anymore, why should I make them read?
Just wanted to point out that an application written for flash uses a proprietary application to run and a proprietary ide to develop. This should cause people concern.
Market infrastructure should not be based on monopolistic proprietary technologies.
Something along the lines of translated bios codes.
Maybe a Over Temp on a CPU could play the "FIRE BAD! FIRE BAAAADDD" clip from the Metallica/Napster flash movies.
That's be so funny.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Ergg. My first thought was of turning on the microwave, and getting a light show with a cheesy tune played using the beeper, along with a prompt to 'Press here to skip intro and begin cooking.'
GPL is not advantage, it is rather a problem. Use BSD-like licenses for application you may want to use in the business.
Frankly speaking - use Mozilla and XPCOM, which is, by the way, much better designed, much better implemented and is completely a cross platform thing.
I've tried XWT on Linux/PPC - it doesn't work. I think that XWT guys think "Linux" about "Linux/x86" sub-platform.
Less is more !
Is this really a good idea? Letting flash use XML-RPC to talk to hardware? Imagine what a flash virus could do.
Flash is closed source, so we are at their mercy to fix problems as theya rise. Right now they are considered a 'good' company. If they ever fall from grace, it will take a long time to get a good flash replacement.
Yeah, not a flame, nor a troll, but Flash does really blow.
;)
What does it blow, you ask?
It blows sheep, goats, and other farm animals.
If you really want a solution that will work for multiuser stuff, as well as handle MORE THAN 2 FREAKING MINUTES OF VIDEO, you should definitely go with Shockwave. Director rules all.
Here's a toy!
Hope we can get off our Flash high horse and start pushing towards better things. There are but a handful of people who know how to use Flash properly, and you're not one of them
I quote:
"Everyone in the universe has a hardon for Flash. There are aliens
visiting Earth right now trying to get Flash. Beings from other
dimensions are extruding into our four just to have access to Flash.
Bacteria are evolving into eukaryotic symbiotes so they can form more
complex colonial creatures which eventually specialize and
differentiate, developing eyespots and a notochord, eventually
transforming into a vertebral column and enlarged anterior ganglion
-- developing musculature, skeletal structure and so on, just so they
can have fingers so they can use them to work with Flash.
That said, the only practical use anyone has actually found for Flash
is those "Skip Intro" pages that everyone skips with a grunt of mild
irritation.
Java blows too. An example of a Java app would be Limewire, where the most clunky app possible is what we ended up with. Doesn't run smoothly, share resources, etc..
No Java.
That said, the only practical use anyone has actually found for Flash is those "Skip Intro" pages that everyone skips with a grunt of mild irritation.
That's simply not the case. There are some compelling Flash applications, such as the...
Korean Arse Shooter .
Da Blog
Hey! I'd just like to thank all the guys/gals on this site that keep naysaying flash, and pull uneducated opinions about its capabilities out their asses.
Cheers! Everytime I read some dumb-assed opion about how the web should be HTML forever, I know that's one less person I have to worry about competing with for a job. Have fun writing your useful web based applications in HTML.
Unfortunately I am not a software author. I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin. Before you call me dumb, I am a ISCET Certified Tech. I'm a hardware tech. I can but a Broadcast radio station back on the air that has been hit by lightning (ask for photos) so my field of expertise is not software coding. Would you know how to fix a 50 KW FM transmitter dammaged by lightning? I know how to use a Motorolla D2000. My debuging tools is not compilers and such, it's storage oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, time domain reflectometers, digital multimeters, directional wattmeters, etc. We are only experts in our own fields.
The truth shall set you free!
Doing XML-RPC is nothing special for a webserver.
Only cattle should support a proprietary system like Fla$h over SVG. Is it only programmers who value open source and open standards? Anyone with an independent thought should see the practicality of SVG, and its implementations.
sorry, I was kinda kidding. I think it just illustrates how ridiculous the "write it yourself" response is for 99% of the people who use computers.
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
That said, Adobe makes a SWF program, GoLive. There is also SWiSH. While they're both less advanced (inevitably, since Macromedia was the pioneer of the SWF format), they're good starting points, especially for basic Flash programmers. There was also a 3D Flash program (before Flash 6), but the name escapes me at the moment.
[insert witty comment here]