flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From marcio fermino <prologicasiste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [FALCON] Procedure of writing SWFs (removing code for handling signed swfs)
Date Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:16:16 GMT
Em sexta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2014, marcio fermino <
prologicasistemas@gmail.com> escreveu:

> UhxSxtgczxyzzxx
>
> Em sexta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2014, Christofer Dutz <
> christofer.dutz@c-ware.de
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','christofer.dutz@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 <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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message