For some unknown reason - which could likely be attributed to my own stupidity if one were to look into it, .AIR files were associated with the Windows version of Firefox inside a Parallels VM I have set up on my Mac. So trying to install an AIR application, or letting an AIR application auto update itself resulted in launching Parallels.

I figured I'd post this cause the location of the AIR Application Installer that you would want to be associated with .AIR files eluded me.

So to fix it just right click on the .AIR file. Choose "Get Info". In the Info window expand the "Open with:" arrow, and make sure "Adobe AIR Application Installer" is selected. If it isn't choose "Other..." in the dropdown list and navigate to Applications->Utilities->Adobe AIR Application Installer, select it and tick the box that says "Always Open With" before clicking "Add". Then back in the Info window click the "Change All..." button to apply it to all .AIR files.

The internet is a buzz with talk of the downfall of Flash. Flash, the only web platform with 99%+ penetration rate cross platform, and 90%+ penetration rate for their latest version only 3 months after release. The platform that powers the web's content, games, and more than 75% of all interactive online media. That's now able to power desktop and mobile applications, and with the imminent release of Flash 10.1 will bring far more efficient and lower memory/ram usage. So much lighter on cpu in fact that it's able to play HD Youtube videos on mobile phones and netbooks without a problem. Yes, Flash, the downfall of Flash.

There are two main arguments to this. The first is the emergence of HTML 5. HTML 5 finally allows video and audio playback without any plugins, and canvas - a tag which allows for complex drawing, embedding fonts, etc. etc. Things Flash has been able to do for years, has a huge head start on, and does really well. Flash has supplied us with everything from video streaming to blackjack, and even website design as a whole, and yet HTML 5 is supposed to just oust the holder of the crown and sceptre when it's finalized? I don't think so. The problem nobody seems to get is that Internet Explorer still has a majority market share, by a lot depending on who you ask - and Microsoft will likely NEVER support standards because it directly counters their business model. Aside from that, and the fact that every browser that will support HTML 5(ie: everyone else), will implement it differently from each other, with different aesthetics, features, code, BUGS, etc. But even more crucial the HTML 5 spec itself is not even complete yet. It's not even finished, and it's unfinished in a deadlock between the web giants who not only can't decide or agree on which video and audio formats are the best performance wise, but also who owns the rights to implement those formats in their browser and who'll have to pay massive royalties should the true patent holders (still somewhat unknown for sure) decide to cash in. No one wants to properly look this up for a variety of reasons and so HTML 5 - supposed to bring the web together and herald a new dawn of the internet can only work if EVERYONE does in fact come together and implement it in exactly the same way; disregarding that ubiquitous HTML 5 means EVERYONE loses something, some everything.

The other main argument is the Apple iPad - just announced. Which like the iPhone doesn't support Flash. Apple uses the old "Flash is too resource intensive" argument to convince you that limiting you from the full web is a good thing. This simply isn't true. It's false. Both iPhone 3Gs and iPad could happily run the current version of Flash or Adobe AIR just like your laptop/desktop. And it's also entirely up to the developer and how they program and how resource intensive they make their flash app/widget/game/etc. The only reason, listen up, the ONLY reason Apple does not support Flash, is because the Flash platform already powers so many games and useful tools and full blown applications on the internet it threatens Apple's very business model of the Itunes/App Store. Apple wants companies to develop all their apps again specifically for the iPlatform and invest in it. If you could make a Flash app that ran on the iPhone it would also run on Android and every other smart phone. But if you invest in the iPlatform your app will only run on the iPlatform. If Apple was a monopoly the FTC would be pushing them down for their anti-competitive vindictive behaviour.

Apple doesn't block Flash support in their mobile products because they want to push innovation in HTML 5. If HTML 5 was advanced enough, or popular enough to be worth creating the caliber of applications possible on Flash, Apple would immediately configure mobile Safari to block, impede, and hinder the advancement of standards just like Microsoft with IE. In a heart beat. Apple promotes HTML 5 because they know it'll be years before it's anywhere close to where Flash is today, if ever. In fact Apple is one of the "powers that be" preventing the HTML 5 spec from being finalized in the codec wars. Apple wants you locked into their platform. Apple doesn't care about advancing the web, or a better user experience, they care about the big media companies bringing their content online through Apple's platform. Apple wants the iPad to replace your tv, radio, and other media consumption devices. They do not care about the open web.

Adobe on the other hand continues to open up the Flash platform and benefits from creating a ubiquitous platform across desktop and mobile. There are fully open source versions of their Streaming and Application servers, and free and open source ways to develop for their platform. Anyone can build a Flash application, for the browser, desktop, Windows, Mac, Linux, Safari, Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc. etc. Build one application and deploy everywhere using an incredibly powerful, scalable, and mature toolset. Apple on the other hand - should you decide to invest in it, puts you in a position where you may or may not after months of development time and costs even get your application onto a device, regardless you'll have payed Apple to be a developer and to submit it in the first place or even get access to their development tools, and should you get through the random and gauntlet of barriers they can still remove your software from their platform and devices at a moments whim. They can and do literally remove your application from people's phones after being downloaded and used without warning to backup the data put into or created by your app. Anytime for any reason. AND if you're lucky enough to get your application through all these extra months of hurdles and costs and lost revenue you're only gaining access to one small subset of mobile devices.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think the HTML 5 is going anywhere anytime soon, let alone even coming close to eclipsing Flash in any way. Not from Apple, they don't want anything to compete with their platform for getting applications on their devices - Flash or otherwise(HTML, Java, Silverlight), and not from anywhere else because it's just not mature, complete, or will over the next 12-24 months be implemented uniformly or consistently across browsers or operating systems. Even in the event that somehow all these competitors come together to reduce their own profit margins and upset shareholders in the name of benefiting the user and happy popcorn rainbows, it will still only have the capabilities of Flash 8-ish. By then Flash Player 11 will be out and all the best web apps will have an Adobe AIR application front end and you'll use an Adobe AIR application to browse through a market place of Adobe AIR apps. Yes we're moving towards the cloud, and yes the cloud and desktop are becoming indistinguishable, but moving into the browser is only a temporary measure for some companies before they build a desktop front end for their service.

The iPad, iPhone, and iPod are toasters. Every person with an iMobile device also has a desktop or laptop for work and actually managing their digital life. Every single person I've seen raving for HTML 5 and the downfall of Flash depends heavily on Flash and its phenomenal capabilities. They're all idiots.

You probably found this because you're trying to make a socket connection from Flex/Flash and getting the following error:

SecurityError: Error #2123: Security sandbox violation:

Adobe went through a number of phases making the rules for serving and checking Policyfiles stricter. There are different security sandboxes. If you publish your flex/flash application on domain.com, and the application attempts to load content from domain2.com, it will look for a Cross Domain Policy File at domain2.com/crossdomain.xml to get permission. It does this automatically, however you could specify the location of the Cross Domain Policy File in your flex application using the following method:

Security.loadPolicyFile("http://domain.com/remote_content/crossdomain.xml")

A Cross Domain Policy File only has authority to grant access to content below it in the folder hierarchy. So a policy file in /remote_content/ can't grant access to content in the root folder, and in addition a Policy File at the domain root can override any other policy file. It has maximal authority. Subdomains are considered separate domains - which as a side note most search engines see subdomains that way too.

Now that's Cross Domain Policy Files, In general Adobe Air applications operate in one of the local system sandboxes and has thus have access to content on any domain. This post is about Socket Policy Files. When you access regular web content you're generally connecting to your server on port 80 and being served content by Apache or whatever web server you happen to be running. When you do this you're using http protocols under the hood and never have to deal directly with that crazy stuff. If you want to make a raw socket connection to your server you will need to serve up a Socket Policy File on a specific port.

First I just want to stress the difference between a Cross Domain Policy File and a Socket Policy File. For some reason my dyslexia and the ton of misleading, vague, and now out of date and incorrect information I kept thinking they were the same thing. Second there is no way as far as I'm aware to serve a Socket Policy File with Apache.

The default port for flex/flash to search for a socket policy file on port 843. There are several places on the web that talk about being able to connect to higher port numbers without a Socket Policy File, well that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Just assume that any raw socket connection from a flex/flash client requires a Socket Policy File.

You can serve the Socket Policy File from the port you're connecting to, but this is tricky considering the manner in which Flex/Flash goes about loading the Socket Policy File and rewriting the service to serve this up, especially if you're using server software built by someone else, means it's just better to keep the Socket Policy File Server as a separate always running entity on the system.

Now in the simplest implementations you need a process either written in python, perl, c++, php cli, or whatever. It needs to be listening on port 843. It has to wait for - very specifically - the following string<policy-file-request/> followed by a NULL byte. Upon receiving that it needs to serve up the policy file which needs to at least have allow-access-from domain set to *, and to-ports set to *. You should use the links at the end of this post to familiarize yourself with the differences between and all options you can specify in Policy Files. It's easiest to keep the Policy File as an actual file, instead of adding the text of the file to your custom server code. And that's it!, now you can go on with a better idea of what information out there is out of date or not.

Here are some important links to help you on your journey:

Adobe on setting up a Socket Policy File Server

Adobe on Policy File changes for flash 9 and 10

Adobe on the structure of Policy Files

An intro to Sockets

Working PHP Cli Socket Policy File Server

Fonts are the creative content of the font designer or foundry, so if you don't have a collection of fonts you've paid for, and aren't planning on purchasing some, you should stick to free fonts. A good place to start is Google, you'll find plenty of foundries who make a few free fonts, and several sites like [http://www.fonts.com/]. You may choose to embed a particular font that came with your operating system for the sake of cross-platform uniformity as well, however you still need to make sure that it is either an OTF (Open Type Font) or TTF (True Type Font), as Flex works with these file types. There are ways to convert postscript and other font formats to OTF/TTF but it's tedious and you're better off finding a different compatible font

You can also load fonts as an external resource in your apps similar to just calling a system font, however embedding them is the way to go. Embedded fonts can be anti-aliased, take part in effects, and are handled as a true asset and thus with a higher regard in your application.

There are a number of ways to embed fonts in your Flex applications. If you'reembedding a font that's active in your system you can specify the system name as in the following example:

@font-face {
src: local("Arial");
fontFamily: MyFont;
}

Likely however you'll not want to keep a whole bunch of fonts active or have to think about activating your project fonts every time you compile, in which case you can copy the font file to your project directory. In the example below the Arial font is in a 'fonts' sub-directory of my project:

@font-face {
src: url("/fonts/Arial.ttf");
fontFamily: MyFont;
}

Note: If you use spaces in the font family as in "My Font" you'll run into an issue where the font appears in Design View but isn't compiled with the app.

There are other options that can be specified to customize your font-face:

fontStyle: normal | italic | oblique;
fontWeight: normal | bold | heavy;
advancedAntiAliasing: true | false;

These style declarations are placed within the mxml <mx:Style> tag. The above code uses CSS, which is best for styling and skinning your application, but if you prefer you can do the same thing in actionscript.

For more information on how to, and why you should/shouldn't embed a font in your applications refer to [http://livedocs.adobe.com...fonts_09.html]

Keep in mind that font files can be quite large, in the 5-12MB+ range and that size will be added to the weight of your application. It's best to use lighter fonts when creating online apps, in which case try to find one's under 200KB.