I am using FB3 Beta3 and I am comparing the release versions. I would expect the file sizes to be different too but not something that would increase by more than two fold when merged into code and 4-fold when converted to an RSL swf.
--- In [email protected], Jeffry Houser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which version of Flex Builder are you using? ( 2 or 3?) If the > latter then are you comparing the "Export release Version" form of the > code or the debug version? > > Beyond that, I don't have an answer. It seems reasonable to me that a > swf and swc would be different file sizes; as they are a different file > format serving different purposes. > > rueter007 wrote: > > > > > > Here is an interesting problem that I am trying to understand and > > hopefully solve. > > > > I basically have two projects, Player and PlayerLib. > > > > PlayerLib is a flex library project and when compiled, creates a swc > > of size 105k. Player depends on PlayerLib. > > > > Three situations for compiling Player: > > > > 1) Compiling without flex framework as an RSL, creates player.swf of > > size 480k. > > > > 2) Compiling with flex framework as an RSL still creates player.swf of > > size 300k even though the dependent swc is only of size 105k. > > > > 3) Compiling with framework as an RSL and PlayerLib.swc as an RSL. > > This reduces the player.swf size to about 60k but creates > > PlayerLib.swf from PlayerLib.swc of size 460k from 105k. > > > > Player.mxml has just an Application shell with a reference to one > > component from PlayerLib. > > > > What I do not understand is why the library swc file is blowing up the > > player.swf by 200k when merged into the code, or creating a swf four > > times the size of its own when converted into an RSL? > > > > Am I missing something here? I would have expected player.swf to be > > comparable to the PlayerLib.swc (~105k) as the flex framework is > > anyway being converted into an RSL. It seems like I cannot reduce my > > player.swf size to anything below 300k. > > > > Does anyone know whats going on here? Is it the way swfs are created > > from the dependent swc, that is increasing the size by 200k? > > > > I hope someone from the flash or flex team has an answer. > > > > -- > Jeffry Houser, Technical Entrepreneur, Software Developer, Author, > Recording Engineer > AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 > -- > My Company: <http://www.dot-com-it.com> > My Podcast: <http://www.theflexshow.com> > My Blog: <http://www.jeffryhouser.com> >
