flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
Subject AW: AW: [FALCON] Procedure of writing SWFs (removing code for handling signed swfs)
Date Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:46:35 GMT
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 <aharui@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.dutz@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.ctr@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.dutz@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


Mime
View raw message