This is degenerating into a discussion that should probably move to the user list, but…
TLF is a must, but the whole TLF library shouldn't be more than 180-190 KB. Nothing like Datagrid is being used. I have a bunch of RichEditableText components that I will probably factor out. That might help… On an aside, it seems to me that the text components (even the spark ones) are pretty bloated and over-engineered. I'm thinking of making some lightweight components for my own purposes. Does anyone else see a need for lightweight versions? The only two mx components being used is ColorPicker and Alert. With the newest release, I should be able to replace those two. I do have one Canvas component in use because I couldn't get the behavior I needed with BorderContainer. Maybe I'll revisit that. The odd thing was that switching to "Spark only" did not bring up any errors for the Canvas component. On Feb 10, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: > The caching rules of RSLs and SWFs are for the most part, are the same. > > Depending on your IDE, you may be able to build a dependency tree, which > should help you determine where your bulk is coming from. I find that > certain components (mx:DataGrid, for example), add in about 250k just for > being there because of all the things it depends on. Some of the Spark > text components are equally as heavy because of their dependence on the TLF > stuff. If you could stop using all of the halo components, you will > probably be much better off as well. > > -Nick > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The numbers were for release. >> >> The debug size using RSLs is about 1 MB. >> >> I'm not really sure if modules can help. There are not many modular >> components in the app. Maybe I can load the image browser as a module, but >> I don't know how much of a difference that will make. There are a number of >> palettes that might be candidates. I'll see what I can do on that front, >> but I don't have high hopes. My bigger concern is really the Flex libs >> which have more bulk than the whole app… Is there a good way of figuring >> out where the bulk is coming from? >> >> If I'm reading you right, the caching of swfs is actually more persistent >> than the caching of unsigned RSLs. Right? >> >> On Feb 10, 2013, at 5:19 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >>> The only advantage to un-signed RSLs is if you serve more than one SWF >> that >>> uses them from your domain. SWFs end up on disk in a browser cache (if >>> there is one and within the limitations of that cache) so then there is a >>> probability you won't have to download some code. >>> >>> Apache Flex will hopefully release often. The Framework RSLs were >>> version-specific, so releasing often further lowers your chances of any >>> benefit even if we did have a way to serve cross-domain RSLs. >>> >>> I suppose we could try to host RSLs at some known place, but browser >> cache >>> limitations would still apply, and you'd want a custom domain name >> otherwise >>> you'd expose yourself to cross-domain scripting. >>> >>> Are your SWF size numbers for release mode or debug mode? Using modules >>> carefully can lower the size of the initial load. >>> >>> >>> On 2/10/13 6:54 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Okay. Like you said this sucks. >>>> >>>> I'm looking to moving from Flex 4.5 to 4.9 in the next few weeks. I just >>>> changed my compile settings to merge instead of using RSLs and the app >> went >>>> from a little over 600 KB to 1.4 MB. :-( >>>> >>>> I clearly have a lot of work to do removing dependency on a lot of >> classes and >>>> getting rid of dependency on mx components (I have a very few in use, >> but the >>>> ones that I'm using will be hard to replace with Spark.) >>>> >>>> I'm still not sure why Flash can't cache third party signed RSLs, but >> there's >>>> not much to be gained by kvetching about it. I doubt they'll add that >> as a >>>> feature to FlashŠ >>>> >>>> Harbs >>>> >>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: >>>> >>>>> When I say signed, I'm meaning signed by Adobe. There really is >>>>> little benefit to sign an RSL with our certificates, as they are in >> the web >>>>> of trust of the Flash Player. >>>>> >>>>> From what I've been told, unless it is signed by Adobe, it is not in >>>>> the persistent cache, so it is not cached on disk, period. This is >>>>> regardless of the domain that it is on. >>>>> >>>>> This came up VERY early on (maybe even at the Tech Summit -- I don't >> know, >>>>> I wasn't there), and Adobe was pretty straight forward that this was >> going >>>>> to be the case. Questions came up about having them sign it, but they >> did >>>>> not want to dedicated the resources to do it. Looking back, it would >> have >>>>> been a pain to have to submit our releases to Adobe for their complete >>>>> review before we could do anything -- potentially holding back our >> releases >>>>> weeks or months. >>>>> >>>>> It was seen as a majority of the Flex work was moving to mobile. On >> AIR >>>>> with mobile, there is no concept of RSLs (everything is embedded >> within the >>>>> final executable), so it was seen as less of an issue. >>>>> >>>>> -Nick >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bah! So they're totally useless. >>>>>> >>>>>> swfs are also cached by the browser for that session. Correct? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there any logic to not caching RSLs for the domain that loaded >> them? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Only signed RSLs are cached on disk. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed meaning signed by Adobe. Right? There's no way to sign a RSL >> with >>>>>> an SSL or code signing certificate. Is there? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> They are downloaded once per domain, per session. If you visit >> domain >>>>>>> x.comtwice in a session (as defined by your browser), then it will >>>>>>> stay in >>>>>>> memory. If you close your session (typically by closing your >> browser), >>>>>>> then it will be cleared from memory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only signed RSLs are cached on disk. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Nick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I apparently missed this. Yes. It does suck. Are RSLs reloaded every >>>>>> time >>>>>>>> for a specific domain, or is it just a cross-domain issue? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I use RSLs for Flex 4.9 and I update my main app, do the RSLs get >>>>>>>> downloaded every time, or will the RSLs from my domain be reused? Is >>>>>> there >>>>>>>> any point in using RSLs at all? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adobe has (had?) a pretty good explanation on their Flash >> Whitepaper. >>>>>> It >>>>>>>>> boils down to this : >>>>>>>>> - They are no longer in control of Flex >>>>>>>>> - They are no longer doing security reviews of the source code >>>>>>>>> - They have to sign the Flex package with their security >> certificate in >>>>>>>>> order for it to be stored in the Flash RSL Cache >>>>>>>>> - They won't sign it anymore because they would be responsible for >> any >>>>>>>>> security issues that may come out of it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, it sucks, but unfortunately, we have to live with it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Nick >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:49 AM, christofer.d...@c-ware.de < >>>>>>>>> christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have to admit, that I don't quite understand what the inability >> to >>>>>>>>>> create signed rsls has to do with the usage of rsls themselves. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem is that the Flashplayer is able to install rsls that >> are >>>>>>>>>> signed by Adobe. Usually the Adobe FDK rsls were also available in >>>>>>>> signed >>>>>>>>>> versions (swz files). These were dynamically loaded the first time >>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> were needed and installed by the Flashplayer. The second time the >> libs >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>>> needed the installed versions were used reducing the download time >>>>>>>>>> dramatically. Now the problem is that Adobe won't sign Apache >> SWCs as >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> are no longer in charge of the libs code (Understandable). Giving >>>>>>>> Apache a >>>>>>>>>> key to be able to also create signed RSLs would eventually open >>>>>> serious >>>>>>>>>> security problems because a signed manipulated swz would be used >> by >>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>> other website using the same version of a given lib. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Coming back to the RSLs ... The difference between a signed and an >>>>>>>>>> unsigned RSL is just, that the unsigned rsl is loaded on every >> visit >>>>>> of >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> user. As far as I know there is no other difference. So I don't >> quite >>>>>>>>>> understand why the lack of availability of signed rsls should >> have any >>>>>>>>>> effect on built applications and the default linking type. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>>>>>>> Von: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. Februar 2013 14:19 >>>>>>>>>> An: dev@flex.apache.org >>>>>>>>>> Betreff: RSLs and signing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I did not realize that Apache Flex does not use RSLs by default. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What's the story with signing? Is that an issue with cross-domain >>>>>>>>>> security? Is there any way to get an Apache signature approved for >>>>>>>> Flash? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Either way, I'd imagine I'd want RSLs for the simple reason that >>>>>>>> updating >>>>>>>>>> apps should result in a smaller download. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Harbs >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Alex Harui wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The default setting for Apache Flex is to not use RSLs because >> Adobe >>>>>>>>>>> cannot sign the Apache Flex RSLs. That's probably why your SWF >> is >>>>>>>>>> bigger. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/13 10:31 PM, "grimmwerks" <gr...@grimmwerks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all - long time listener first time caller. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've taken a project that was originally 4.6 and I flipped it to >>>>>> 4.9; >>>>>>>>>>>> comparing the same code on two computers - when I build with >> the 4.6 >>>>>>>>>>>> sdk I get a swf of 304k (with all the other extraneous libraries >>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>>> as osmf, mx, sparkspins, etc) -- whereas with 4.9 the main sf is >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.1mb -- that's a huge difference with no other changes in code >> no? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Garry Schafer >>>>>>>>>>>> grimmwerks >>>>>>>>>>>> gr...@grimmwerks.com >>>>>>>>>>>> portfolio: www.grimmwerks.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Alex Harui >>>>>>>>>>> Flex SDK Team >>>>>>>>>>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>>>>>>>>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alex Harui >>> Flex SDK Team >>> Adobe Systems, Inc. >>> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >>> >> >>
