Em sexta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2014, marcio fermino < prologicasiste...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> UhxSxtgczxyzzxx > > Em sexta-feira, 31 de outubro de 2014, Christofer Dutz < > christofer.d...@c-ware.de > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','christofer.d...@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 <aha...@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.d...@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....@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.d...@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 >> >>
