The compiler should always be writing out a digest for the library.swf in a SWC. The digests are used for unsigned RSLs as well as signed RSLs. The digest is not only important for validating an RSL loaded from a foreign domain but it is also used at runtime to prevent loading the same RSL multiple times.
-Darrell On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:16 PM, marcio fermino <prologicasiste...@gmail.com > wrote: > Em sexta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2014, marcio fermino < > prologicasiste...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > UhxSxtgczxyzzxx > > > > Em sexta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2014, Christofer Dutz < > > christofer.d...@c-ware.de > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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> > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 15:41 > >> An: dev@flex.apache.org > >> 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> > >> 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> > >> >Gesendet: Freitag, 31. Oktober 2014 11:02 > >> >An: dev@flex.apache.org > >> >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] > >> >Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:35 AM > >> >To: dev@flex.apache.org > >> >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 > >> > >> >
