One of the first decisions you’ll have to make when you start building a PlayBook application is whether you want to use the Flex Framework for mobile devices or the QNX component set that ships as part of the AIR SDK for PlayBook. Even if you’re a Flex developer it’s not a straightforward decision so it’s important to be able to weigh the pros and cons of each side. I’ve been talking to a number of developers about Flex versus QNX and wanted to put down my thoughts to help developers decide. If you think I missed something, let me know in the comments and I’ll add it.
Performance
I don’t yet have a PlayBook to test the differences on, but in talking to people that do, performance generally seems like a wash. There’s something to be said for the fact that the QNX team is working really closely with the hardware to optimize their component set, but I also know the Flex team has made leaps and bounds in performance for Flex Mobile. When I get an actual device I’ll update this section.
Component Set
This is an area where I thought Flex would have a decided advantage. And if you count the entire component set, it does. But if you limit the comparison to mobile-optimized components, Flex ends up a little behind. For both platforms the core components are there, lists, buttons, etc. Flex has a TextArea component while QNX doesn’t, but QNX has a slider component while Flex’s hasn’t been mobile-optimized yet. Where QNX ends up winning though is in the number of components that are being built to support UI features of the PlayBook. QNX has support for a number of different dialog components including the LoginDialog component as well as built in support for lists with sections. If you’re sticking to the normal base components, Flex is a perfect fit, but the QNX components are a bit higher level and provide some specific UI elements that your users will see across the PlayBook that you can then add to your own application.
The Picker component from the PlayBook AIR SDK
The Picker component selected
Layout
Flex wins this hands down in my opinion. The layout system that the QNX components employ works just fine, and it’s elegantly simple. It uses a container system and I’ve been told it’s similar to Java. I did a screencast on how to use it and it generally accomplishes most of what you’ll need to do. But if you want to do anything above and beyond, the Flex layout system still rules. Having to use things like a Spacer container to align a component in the middle of the screen just seems hacky compared to being able to set properties on a Group. Plus, with Flex you can very easily create your own layouts, which means you can create far more customized looking applications with Flex than with the QNX components.
Skinning/Designer-Developer Workflow
Currently I see this one as a draw. The Spark components of Flex offer a lot of customization and on the desktop provide some great integration with tools like Flash Catalyst, Illustrator, and Photoshop. The only problem is that you don’t really get those integrations if you’re building mobile Flex applications because for most components you won’t want to use MXML-based skins, you’ll want to use AS3 skins. Because all of the designer-developer tooling uses MXML, you won’t be able to pull out all of the benefits of Spark on mobile devices. On the other hand, the QNX components don’t really have any designer developer workflow either. I found the skinning model for QNX to be similar in a lot of ways to the skinning model of Spark. Either way, when you skin these applications you’ll be doing a lot of ActionScript and relying a lot on images.
Mobile UI Paradigms
The TabNavigator UI Paradigm
The Flex mobile team has done a fantastic job of building the framework from the ground up with mobile user interface paradigms in mind. A base Flex Mobile application gives you an ActionBar, which can contain global content, an easy way to add and remove pages from within the application (complete with default transitions between screens), and components for tabbed navigation. With QNX you’re going to be creating most of those from scratch. On one hand it means that you can build up your own mobile UI paradigms if for some reason you don’t want to use what Flex has to offer. On the other hand, the paradigms that Flex Mobile uses are ubiquitous at this point and I’ve found myself trying to copy them in my PlayBook applications.
Flex Mobile’s ActionBar Component
Native
This is one of those intangible things but I think it’s important to look at critically. Alex Payne noted some of the issues with AIR applications and how they compare to native applications (also read Ed Finkler’s post on the subject). One of the things I find most exciting about the PlayBook is that it’s the only platform where Flash is native. The QNX components that you use in the SDK are the exact same ones that are being used across the device. It’s very exciting to be able to build native UIs with my Flash/Flex skills. I’m obviously a big fan of Flex and AIR for a lot of things, but given the chance to build native apps, I’ll do it. And it couldn’t be easier for Flash developers to use the QNX components to create native PlayBook apps. That being said, the native APIs and device functionality are all exposed via ActionScript APIs so even if you’re building a Flex app you can still take advantage of the same native and device-specific functionality that developers who use QNX can. So it just comes down to how you want your application to feel compared to other applications on the device.
Another important consideration is being able to reuse your code to deploy to other devices. If you’re looking for a consistent brand across multiple devices and the ability to reuse big chunks of code, Flex is the only answer. You won’t be able to use the QNX components outside of the PlayBook environment so you’ll have to rewrite the application for iOS or for Android or for any of the other devices AIR supports.
Conclusion
I don’t really see a winner for either one of these because I think it comes down to developer skills and what kind of experience you’re going for. I’ve really enjoyed diving into the native QNX components because I like when applications have a native look and feel. If you’re primarily a Flex developer you’re probably going to miss some of the things that you’ll lose by moving to the QNX components. And someone may come up with a Flex skin that mirrors the look and feel of the QNX components so you can get the best of both worlds. Either way building applications for the PlayBook will be right up the alley of any Flash developer. It’s a device that has basically been built from the ground up to support Flash and I’ve been enjoying it immensely. I’m hoping to have a Pintley application out for the PlayBook at launch so if you’re a beer lover, check back here.
One good place to start hashing out the differences is to take a look at the developer documentation for each: Flex, QNX. That will give you a feel for some of what’s supported in each one. And again, I’ll be updating this post with comments so feel free to comment below or to drop me an email.
View full post on Digital Backcountry – Ryan Stewart’s Flash Platform Blog
