It should also be noted that the ECMAScript standard requires that a call to a function object's toString method returns the source code to the method, so any JavaScript implementation that accepted compiled JS and could not produce decompiled code upon request would be non- standard.
On Aug 25, 11:21 am, Jon Rimmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Harder for who? The average computer user isn't likely to start > cracking open your extension to view the source either. For someone > who knows what they're doing, reverse engineering some hypothetical JS > bytecode isn't likely to be any more difficult than understanding > obfuscated JS source. And a compiled binary is no harder to copy and > re-publish than an uncompiled source file. > > Secondly, as Aaron was saying, the whole foundation of the web is > about openness. The ability to easily 'view source' on HTML, > JavaScript and CSS helped drive its popularity and made it an easy > platform to learn. With Chrome, the web sites are open, the browser is > open, so why should the extensions be closed? If you really that > desparate for people not to see your source, then either develop using > NPAPI, or develop an extension for a more philosophically compatible > browser like IE. > > On Aug 24, 1:06 pm, PhistucK <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Wow, wow, wow.Chill. > > > Not every single computer user can reverse engineer a binary. > > It *is* harder than simply checking out a source code. > > Some people do not go that far. > > Some people just want their extension not to be copied and re-published that > > easily. Or can you not understand that? > > > ☆PhistucK > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 14:33, Uriel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Aaron Boodman<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM, > > > > If you really do want this, you have the option to include NPAPI > > > > plugins in your extension written in native code. Those are a lot > > > > harder to reverse engineer. > > > > They still can be reverse engineered easily enough, and anyone that > > > relies on this for security, or for anything else, deserves to be > > > fired on the spot for being totally incompetent. > > > > uriel > > > > > But the JavaScript, HTML, and CSS in Chromium extensions will never be > > > > obfuscated. Any compilation will just be an optimization, and > > > > transparent to the developer. > > > > > - a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" 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/chromium-extensions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
