Also, my original understanding of "-use-network=false" is that the
SWF would be trusted to access local resources, but not network
resources. What counts as "network resources" in this case? I
initially assumed that I would encounter an error if I uploaded the
SWF and the image to a web server, but it seems that's not the case.

Ideally, I want my SWF to work both when running on a local machine,
and also when deployed on a webserver.

--- In [email protected], "Stephen Roy J. Tang"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In that case, say I have an SWF compiled using FlexBuilder and I move
> the copy to another folder (or another machine), would it raise the
> security violation?
> 
> --- In [email protected], Mac Martine <martine@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > When you create a Flex workspace, that workspace path is then added
> to the
> > list of directories ³trusted² by the Player (in flexbuilder.cfg).
> Therefore,
> > on your machine any files that are in that directory (or a
> subdirectory of
> > that folder) are trusted. When your friend is trying to run it, the
> Player
> > is trying to access an un-trusted location.
> > -mac
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/16/07 8:24 PM, "Stephen Roy J. Tang" <roytang.sub@> wrote:
> > 
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > How exactly does the Flash Player determine when it will throw a
> > > security sandbox error? I encountered a problem with a case like
this:
> > > I had an Image object loading a file via relative path, i.e.
<mx:Image
> > > source="assets/filename.png" />. The swf works fine on my machine.
> > > 
> > > A coworker checks out the source and compiles it on her own machine,
> > > and she gets a sandbox violation error. The difference is that she's
> > > using command line mxmlc to compile, I'm using Flex Builder. Neither
> > > of us are using the use-network compiler param. Of course, I ask her
> > > to just set the param and she can then run the swf without
error. But
> > > I'm curious as to why it would behave differently in her case and
> mine.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Roy
> > > 
> > >  
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to