UhxSxtgczxyzzxx Em sexta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2014, Christofer Dutz < christofer.d...@c-ware.de> escreveu:
> I wasn't planning on ripping out anything at the moment ... I just > stumbled over it and wanted to discuss it this this code is even > accessible. The code I'm talking about deals with the writing of the > catalog.xml ... here falcon checks each digest it finds if it's signed and > processes the output differently if it finds signed content. I Just thought > "can this still happen?". > > Chris > > ________________________________________ > Von: Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com <javascript:;>> > Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 15:41 > An: dev@flex.apache.org <javascript:;> > Betreff: Re: AW: [FALCON] Procedure of writing SWFs (removing code for > handling signed swfs) > > Before you rip it out, let’s see if Darrell or Gordon can answer. I > thought there were still digests for unsigned RSLs and the signing that > the cache depends on was a separate non-compiler thing > > -Alex > > On 10/31/14, 7:36 AM, "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >Well I stumbled over code that looks to me as if it must be dead code. > >I think the only libraries with signed digests must be those swz files > >distributed by Adobe (Hope I'm correct with that assumption). Was just > >thinking that in this case it would be a good idea to remove code that > >cant be used anyway and which makes the compiler more complicated than it > >has to be. > > > >Chris > > > >________________________________________ > >Von: Kessler CTR Mark J <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil <javascript:;>> > >Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 11:02 > >An: dev@flex.apache.org <javascript:;> > >Betreff: RE: [FALCON] Procedure of writing SWFs (removing code for > >handling signed swfs) > > > >>Now my question: > >>As we don't have signed RSLs and never will again ... how about removing > >>code related with this from Falcon? > > > > > >Does that mean keeping RSLs and removing the calculated digest comparison > >from Falcon? Since we don't have Adobe signed RSLs anymore (meaning > >stored in the flash asset cache vs the browser cache) then I think it > >would be fine. > > > > > >-Mark > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Christofer Dutz [mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de <javascript:;>] > >Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:35 AM > >To: dev@flex.apache.org <javascript:;> > >Subject: [FALCON] Procedure of writing SWFs (removing code for handling > >signed swfs) > > > >Hi, > > > > > >So I read the code and now it's a little clearer why the SWC part > >references a lot of the SWF stuff. A SWC is nothing more than a Zip file > >containing the library content in form of an SWF as well as the static > >resources (CSS Files, Assets etc.). > > > > > >While writing the output for the SWF a digest is created (unless the > >library is signed, which shouldn't be possible at all as we don't have > >signed libraries anymore). > > > > > >As last step the catalog.xml is created, which is sort of an index of the > >content of the SWF (probably so the compiler knows where to get type > >definitions from when compiling). This catalog also contains the digest > >for the SWF so the compiler can quit with an error, if the saved digest > >doesn't match the calculated digest of the SWF and therefore the index > >values can't match the real positions int the file. > > > > > >Now my question: > > > >As we don't have signed RSLs and never will again ... how about removing > >code related with this from Falcon? > > > > > >Chris > >
