I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand, there is definitely a point for improving the framework's modularity and split it in several normal rsl, but from my experience, several of the users of applications I've built, especially in the corporate/healthcare area, like to clean browser cache at the end of the day in an effort to eliminate any history that would reveal where they've been in the interewebs. I know this sound stupid, but it happens, so having the framework protected in a different cache system would make sense.
You could argue that in a medium to large application, the framework should be that much of a burden to be downloaded with the rest of the application's infrastructure, but there is definitely a use case for a protected framework cache. I agree with Roland in respect to the fact that Adobe will not easily sign a framework they're not fully in control. I wish we and they could find some sort of workaround for this, but it looks bleak, at best. As I said, mixed feelings. I guess I'll be happy with whichever result comes out of this, but if there is no workaround for the secure rsl for the framework, I think someone should concentrate on that modularity stuff. Regards, Rui -------- Original Message -------- > From: "João Fernandes" <joaopedromartinsfernan...@gmail.com> > Sent: quinta-feira, 5 de Janeiro de 2012 10:15 > To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Flex Framework rsl's > > I could live without signed RSLs and just use plain swf RSLs. Of course > there is a nice benefit having them on FP cache but is it a crucial > feature? Couldn't the SDK somehow be enhanced so we wouldn't even need it > anymore? > > João Fernandes
