I disagree. It's off topic. Except for the point about it being harder to decompile Dalvik byte codes, but that's just a matter of some tool development work.
And my experience (non-Dalvik, to be sure) is that "Class loading time goes up, execution efficiency is reduced" is incorrect, that the opposite results -- in fact, that's one of the reasons to consider obfuscation despite the pitfalls -- so I think bad advice is being handed out with the good here. Another positive is that application size goes down -- I've never seen nor heard of an exception to that. Anyway -- it looks to me like your problems stem from not starting from a working ant build and then adding obfuscation. If you follow the documented approach for creating a new ant build project, and then move your code into it, you should have a working build virtually out-of-the-box. You can then turn that into a NetBeans project or Eclipse project without much trouble, and get the benefits of both worlds. Probably even all three is doable! Then, once you have that working ant build, extend it with an obfuscation step. I haven't done that yet -- but having seen how the base ant build is generated, I absolutely would not try it without first having a solid ant build in place. Then you would not be experiencing errors like tasks not defined or missing targets. The negatives are real, and one is that it will take you some time to set it up and get right, and a lot of testing to make sure it's right. But I think it will go faster if you start with a blank ant- build project, get that solid, and then add obfuscation. On Aug 1, 3:46 pm, Indicator Veritatis <[email protected]> wrote: > Pointing out the pitfalls of obfuscation is NOT "moving the thread off > topic". For in order for you to understand the answer to your > immediate question, "has anyone had success" at it, you have to > understand what 'success' could MEAN in the context. And DanH has been > quite generous with exactly the background to understanding how > limited that success will be. > > On Jul 30, 9:46 am, sblantipodi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You are so kind answering me and I really appreciate it > > but there are many answers, all are off topic. > > I haven't asked if it is good to obfuscate or if I need to switch to > > NDK, > > I asked if someone succeded obfuscating standard android class using > > ant. > > > Please don't move this thread off topic. > > Thanks to all. > > > On Jul 30, 5:37 pm, DanH <[email protected]> wrote:> Keep in mind that what > > goes onto the phone isn't Java bytecodes but > > > rather the Dalvik translation. Much harder to back-translate than > > > bytecodes. > > > > (I've seen obfuscated bytecodes and it's not pretty. Class loading > > > time goes up, execution efficiency is reduced, the odds of hitting a > > > bug, either in the obfuscator or in the JVM, is greatly increased.) > > > > On Jul 30, 9:11 am, sblantipodi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ok, thanks for the suggestions, any other idea? :) > > > > > On Jul 30, 2:59 pm, DanH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Just say no to obfuscation. > > > > > > On Jul 30, 3:36 am, sblantipodi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Since I'm going mad trying obfuscating my projects on Netbeans and > > > > > > it's not reasonable > > > > > > at the moment for me to switch to Eclipse I need a command line > > > > > > script > > > > > > that let me > > > > > > build and obfuscate my APK... > > > > > > > Is there some example script, or some tutorial that could help me in > > > > > > this "intent"? > > > > > > Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
