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


Reply via email to