Ken McNeil writes:
> An obfuscator can be used to reduce the size of class files
Ab-used. In all honesty, if somebody wants to write a class
file compression utility, he would not call it an obfuscator.
Simple textual replacement does not suffice either, thus
obfuscators actually use extended names that contain Java
symbols and identifiers, to render the dis-assembled source
not only unreadable but incompilable. Theoretically speaking,
obfusaction implies redundancy to hide essentials in bloat.
Java security requires that the algorithmic structure and
code are easily analyzed. In a way, Java code verification
is attempting to automate open source peer review for
security purposes. Obfuscation just gets in the way. If
somebody can't live with the dynamic linking and decompile
properties of the technology, they should either re-consider
their licensing, or compile and ship as native code.
I am not saying that this is not unfortunate in some cases.
Small companies are severely hurt buy the impossibility
to ship "runtimes" - Arcana and Magician is an example.
They try the change of licensing, and the jury is out
whether it will suffice.
However, an obfuscator under GPL strikes me as ironic.
b.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
