Bah! So they're totally useless. swfs are also cached by the browser for that session. Correct?
Is there any logic to not caching RSLs for the domain that loaded them? > Only signed RSLs are cached on disk. Signed meaning signed by Adobe. Right? There's no way to sign a RSL with an SSL or code signing certificate. Is there? On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: > They are downloaded once per domain, per session. If you visit domain > x.comtwice in a session (as defined by your browser), then it will > stay in > memory. If you close your session (typically by closing your browser), > then it will be cleared from memory. > > Only signed RSLs are cached on disk. > > -Nick > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I apparently missed this. Yes. It does suck. Are RSLs reloaded every time >> for a specific domain, or is it just a cross-domain issue? >> >> If I use RSLs for Flex 4.9 and I update my main app, do the RSLs get >> downloaded every time, or will the RSLs from my domain be reused? Is there >> any point in using RSLs at all? >> >> On Feb 10, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: >> >>> Adobe has (had?) a pretty good explanation on their Flash Whitepaper. It >>> boils down to this : >>> - They are no longer in control of Flex >>> - They are no longer doing security reviews of the source code >>> - They have to sign the Flex package with their security certificate in >>> order for it to be stored in the Flash RSL Cache >>> - They won't sign it anymore because they would be responsible for any >>> security issues that may come out of it. >>> >>> Yes, it sucks, but unfortunately, we have to live with it. >>> >>> -Nick >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < >>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >>> >>>> I have to admit, that I don't quite understand what the inability to >>>> create signed rsls has to do with the usage of rsls themselves. >>>> >>>> The problem is that the Flashplayer is able to install rsls that are >>>> signed by Adobe. Usually the Adobe FDK rsls were also available in >> signed >>>> versions (swz files). These were dynamically loaded the first time they >>>> were needed and installed by the Flashplayer. The second time the libs >> were >>>> needed the installed versions were used reducing the download time >>>> dramatically. Now the problem is that Adobe won't sign Apache SWCs as >> they >>>> are no longer in charge of the libs code (Understandable). Giving >> Apache a >>>> key to be able to also create signed RSLs would eventually open serious >>>> security problems because a signed manipulated swz would be used by >> every >>>> other website using the same version of a given lib. >>>> >>>> Coming back to the RSLs ... The difference between a signed and an >>>> unsigned RSL is just, that the unsigned rsl is loaded on every visit of >> a >>>> user. As far as I know there is no other difference. So I don't quite >>>> understand why the lack of availability of signed rsls should have any >>>> effect on built applications and the default linking type. >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com] >>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013 14:19 >>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org >>>> Betreff: RSLs and signing >>>> >>>> I did not realize that Apache Flex does not use RSLs by default. >>>> >>>> What's the story with signing? Is that an issue with cross-domain >>>> security? Is there any way to get an Apache signature approved for >> Flash? >>>> >>>> Either way, I'd imagine I'd want RSLs for the simple reason that >> updating >>>> apps should result in a smaller download. >>>> >>>> Harbs >>>> >>>> On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >>>> >>>>> The default setting for Apache Flex is to not use RSLs because Adobe >>>>> cannot sign the Apache Flex RSLs. That's probably why your SWF is >>>> bigger. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/8/13 10:31 PM, "grimmwerks" <gr...@grimmwerks.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hey all - long time listener first time caller. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've taken a project that was originally 4.6 and I flipped it to 4.9; >>>>>> comparing the same code on two computers - when I build with the 4.6 >>>>>> sdk I get a swf of 304k (with all the other extraneous libraries such >>>>>> as osmf, mx, sparkspins, etc) -- whereas with 4.9 the main sf is >>>>>> 1.1mb -- that's a huge difference with no other changes in code no? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Garry Schafer >>>>>> grimmwerks >>>>>> gr...@grimmwerks.com >>>>>> portfolio: www.grimmwerks.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alex Harui >>>>> Flex SDK Team >>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
