There are three mxmlc options: -load-externs (removes all files listed from some other -link-report -compiler.external-library-path (remove all files from a SWC) -externs (removes a class)
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gordon Smith Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 4:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: SWF file format question - SymbolClass Tag Also, I'm pretty sure that there is some compiler option you can use to prevent specific classes from getting linked in. That's a lot easier than trying to remove them after they've been linked in. Gordon Smith Adobe Flex SDK Team From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gordon Smith Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 4:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [flexcoders] Re: SWF file format question - SymbolClass Tag The AS3 classes are in the DoABC (or maybe a DoABC2?) tag. It seems unlikely that you could remove a class and still have the SWF work. If the class wasn't used by your application, the MXML compiler wouldn't have linked it in. Gordon Smith Adobe Flex SDK Team From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of aaron smith Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: SWF file format question - SymbolClass Tag Actually, I could be wrong. would it make more sense if it was the DoABC tag? There's a field on DoABC called ABCData - I would assume that's the bytecode. hmm. i'll keep looking arund. if anyone has any ideas hook me up. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:44 PM, aaron smith <[email protected]<mailto:beingthexemplarylists%40gmail.com>> wrote: > Has anyone read through the SWF file format, and been able to decipher > how exactly AS3 classes are compiled into the SWF? From reading > through all of the control tags it seems it would be the SymbolClass > tag. So, it would seem, I could rip out SymbolClass tags from the > bytecode (for a specific class) - while keeping track of the new file > length, then write the swf again and have a swf that doesn't include > the definition for a particular class. Anyone else think that makes > sense? > > Thanks >
