Well since you raised them.... this is for others reading the thread since, as you said, you've already made up your mind.
"Creating more compact code," How significant this is very much depends on the structure of your code and the verbosity of method or class names. In general I would expect an Android up to have relatively few methods or classes. "for smaller code archives" Much less a problem in Android phones then J2ME phones due to their larger memory sizes. When you had to fit an app in 16K, a handful of bytes made a difference. Now not so much. "faster transfer across networks, faster loading," Again, 3G/80211 pretty much obviates the need for this. Its hard to write a cell phone app big enough that Dl takes an objectionable time on modern networks. "and smaller memory footprints." See above. "Making programs and libraries harder to reverse-engineer." I already addressed this. To recap: nothing you write in an Android environment is going to be so much code that any competent engineer wont be able to easily and quickly recreate it from scratch. And that way he is legally in the clear. As far as hacking, this is not going to even slow down any competent hacker. Android code just isnt big enough or complex enough to make reading direct bytecode even a chore. ( And any incompetent hacker is a 'script kiddie" and will just get the results from the competent ones.) "Listing dead code, so it can be removed from the source code." If you cant find your own dead code in something as small as an android app, you need some serious help. As it happens though, Eclipse and other IDEs will give you that help. "Retargeting and preverifying existing class files for Java 6, to take full advantage of Java 6's faster class loading." Irrelevant since we are on Dalvik On Dec 15, 4:59 pm, sdphil <[email protected]> wrote: > there are many reasons to run pro-guard obfuscation - as outlined here > --http://proguard.sourceforge.net/ > > I do not really want to get into an argument about the benefits of it > or whether or not it's needed, I was simply hoping someone else has > already done this and could help me along. > > tia. > > On Dec 15, 1:56 pm, CyberQat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What problem are you trying to solve?? > > > Obfuscation wont keep someone from downloading your app and uploading > > it somewhere else. > > > Its also a pretty weak defense against hacking. Any decent hacker is > > going to be able to read bytecode and > > attack it at that level. > > > And finally the size of an Android app is not so big someone couldn't > > easily rewrite your app from scratch if they > > wanted to compete with you. This would be safer for them too since > > your code is protected under Copyright law. > > > In general obfuscation is way over-rated. Are you sure its worth the > > time and effort your putting into it? > > > On Dec 15, 3:02 pm, sdphil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > i would like to integrate pro-guard in my product, but I generate the > > > build.xml file every time. > > > > i saw this post about how to ammend the build xml to do this > > > --http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/threa... > > > > but since I have an automated build system that generates the > > > build.xml each time it builds, I'm wondering what the best way to do > > > this is. > > > > what have other people done and what's the best way to integrate this > > > into an automated build. > > > > tia. -- 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
