Alex fyi I have wondered about breaking the class strings into literal concatenation expressions with package parts for CLASS_INFO and in the reflection data. This should end up minifying via closure compiler much better, I think. e.g.
'org.'+'apache.'+'flex.'+'events.'+'Event' On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote: > So I just pushed a first crack at suppressing most @export statements. > Set -export-public-symbols=false and many @export statements should go > away. The before size of TLFEditTestFlexJS was 813493 bytes. I > recompiled TLF without @export symbols and the after size was 679609 > bytes. And it ran. > > Some things I found were that MXML isn't a problem because the id maps to > a getter/setter which maps to Object.DefineProperty which takes an object > structure where the ids are keys so they don't get renamed. I noticed > that class names take up a lot of strings because they are used as a > literal in the FLEXJS_CLASS_INFO and thus never get minified/renamed. > > Anyway, try compiling and running your application code with this option > set to false and see if it obfuscates things enough or not, and whether > the result still runs. > > Thanks, > -Alex > > On 8/7/17, 9:06 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > >From the output side, it probably isn't hard, but there is no way succinct > >way to tell the compiler which classes should use @export or not. You > >could annotate the class definitions, but then you can't choose to output > >@export without changing source. > > > >Why do you think we need per-class control over this output? > > > >-Alex > > > >On 8/7/17, 8:54 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>Cool. > >> > >>How difficult would it be to allow this on a class-by-class basis? > >> > >>> On Aug 7, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>> First thing I will do, though, is allow turning off @export output on > >>> entire compiler sessions. That might allow you to have your text > >>>engine > >>> and your application logic more aggressively renamed but not require us > >>>to > >>> fix code in other SWCs that might use bracket access. > >> > > > >
