I'm glad we can finally talk about this.
http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-countries-more-sellers-more-buyers.html
Cheers,
Dan
-
Dan Galpin
Developer Advocate
Google, Inc.
-
If you actually want answers to your questions, it's far better to
post them here, because the
You are refuting a straw man argument. If the documentation is so good
at the Proguard site, then Google's documentation, in particular in
Dan's blog, should have referred to it. It also should have been
written to complement the Proguard documentation, not as it to replace
it. But neither
This is not a trend.
People should use proguard. Many people don't know how, so we made a
blog post to help them. Using LVL really benefit from proguard, so we
feel it was important enough to do it before we had full proguard
support in the tools.
But even with proguard support in the tools you
It's not what developers are too lazy to do. It's what customers are
willing to pay for.
On Sep 27, 9:18 am, Xavier Ducrohet x...@android.com wrote:
Honestly, if a developer is too lazy to learn how to use proguard then
he/she shouldn't use it. There are very few things in development when
Not to beat a tired horse here, but I thought it might make sense to
explain the genesis of this post.
When we released the License Validator Library, we added the strong
suggestion that developers apply Proguard or some other obfuscator to
their builds when they make use of it. However, we
Dan,
Thank you for providing some context. I suppose everyone would agree
that this was a missing element. I don't know the number of developers
I can speak for here, but let's say it's a good number... we really
like to maximize the productivity on our projects and minimize the
time we spend on
Google people should stop telling people to go read the source or
go read the config file, when others ask for what Google should have
documented.
On Sep 25, 7:15 am, Xavier Ducrohet x...@android.com wrote:
People should read the blog post Dan posted and read the files that
comes with it.
one
ProGuard has great documentation. Click on the Manual link on the left
at their site:
http://proguard.sourceforge.net/
They even have an example configuration file for Android projects in
the Examples section. It was there a long time before this recent
change by Google to add ProGuard support to
That is excellent information. Thank you for posting it.
But there is one thing that surprises me as it is written, so I must
ask for clarification: when you say, there is no way we can figure it
out programmatically[sic], do you mean that such is the case even when
Proguard is integrated with
Neat idea. An annotation wouldn't work for things in JAR libraries,
however. Back when I tested ProGuard to see if it helped my frame
rates, I had to turn obfuscation off for some classes in JARs I use.
Not sure why, maybe the library used reflection or something. It
wasn't even a weird library,
People should read the blog post Dan posted and read the files that
comes with it.
one of those files is the Ant additional rules, the other one is a
proguard config file.
In this file, there are rules to not obfuscate the activity, service,
broadcastreceiver, etc... classes.
For the native
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Lance Nanek lna...@gmail.com wrote:
The most powerful solution would be to just have a file field in the
project properties for a ProGuard config file to use. I guess since
people are complaining they can't use Ant, maybe they would complain
they can't edit
Integration in Eclipse - a step in the right direction if serious
about promoting Proguard.
It's wait and see for me now. I am too busy with other things to
wanting to figure this one out.
Xavier and crew, two aspects that I'll ask you to keep in mind:
1. There's plenty of developers who need to
Regrettably, Android multiplier is considerably greater than iOS's.
Java Eclipse Vs Objective C Xcode. You decide.
Sorry, I just couldn't let that comment slide by.
On Sep 25, 11:45 am, JP joachim.pfeif...@gmail.com wrote:
Integration in Eclipse - a step in the right direction if serious
On Sep 25, 10:08 am, Craigo craig...@gmail.com wrote:
Java Eclipse Vs Objective C Xcode. You decide.
Well yeah for the stuff that's done on the side. Another decision
would to head to the beach because it's such a nice day.
I am referring to professional work though where one would rather
Not sure if anyone has seen it, but this tutorial that I picked up
awhile back has some pretty helpful hits on using Proguard with
Android:
http://www.androidengineer.com/2010/07/optimizing-obfuscating-and-shrinking.html
On Sep 25, 9:45 am, JP joachim.pfeif...@gmail.com wrote:
Integration in
Xav already posted on this, as someone else pointed out in this thread. (I
am not responsible for tools, so I can't speak to this anyway.)
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Lebed srle...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dianne,
I was one of the people eagerly awaiting to read how to add Proguard
Google has too long a history of stonewalling and foot dragging. You
NEED that kind of 'motivation' -- unless you finally learn to take
responsibility for committing to fix your bugs without such unpleasant
prodding.
When, for example, are you going to fix AAC+ support in StageFright?
When will
Hi,
I'd love to be in a position of being concerned about piracy, LVL,
Progard obfuscated stack traces.
But alas I'm still one of the many dev's situated in a region
(Australia) were I can buy apps from the Android Market but not
publish a paid app.
This is a big ongoing disincentive and
We are working on direct support in ADT/Ant. We just decided to
release a quick blog post on how to manually add this to Ant since
it's somewhat easy to do (unlike ADT).
However, proguard does need to know about which class to not obfuscate
and there is no way we can figure it out
BTW, I would be interested in hearing the problem people have
switching between Ant and ADT.
We are trying to make sure that one can use both at the same time. I
think it makes sense to use ADT during development but use Ant for
automated builds for instance.
I do realize Ant is much more
I think for most of us it is just the idea of going from a familiar, known
setup to something new with potential pitfalls that could potentially cause
delay in releasing apps initially. I personally look forward to trying the
build with Ant as I like to customize things, however, it seems that
If I was adding Proguard for the first time then sure I have to solve
the problem.
For that one first time for all my prohjects.
If I had already been using Proguard as part of my release process,
why would it suddenly mess up my release?
Part of a Maven build is to lock down everything using
The options were listed in preference.
I typically use 1 or 2 or sometimes a combo of both.
Option 3 is for when I am feeling very lazy and don't expect many
instance of projects using the same build config, so no payback on
doing 1 or 2.
On Sep 24, 11:56 am, Indicator Veritatis
Thank you so much Xavier!
On Sep 24, 6:00 am, Xavier Ducrohet x...@android.com wrote:
We are working on direct support in ADT/Ant. We just decided to
release a quick blog post on how to manually add this to Ant since
it's somewhat easy to do (unlike ADT).
However, proguard does need to know
Personally I dislike the release overhead, but since I only ever need
to wear the cost once for any particular type of build I don't see it
as that onerous over all.
I configure my projects using maven and drop the necessary tools as
plugins into the relevant phase of the build life-cycle.
From
At face value, the blog entry is responding to those on this list who
have been asking for help adding Proguard to their build process.
Whether Proguard is worth the effort and expense (e.g, maintaining
symbol maps for decoding stack dumps) is another matter. Proguard can
significantly compact
On Sep 23, 12:11 am, joebowbeer joe.bowb...@gmail.com wrote:
At face value, the blog entry is responding to those on this list who
have been asking for help adding Proguard to their build process.
Maybe. With no reference to such requests, the way the post reads, I
get the impression is
On Sep 22, 11:53 pm, William Ferguson william.ferguson...@gmail.com
wrote:
But hey, I place higher value than some on those 3 : simple, clear and
maintainable.
Nice framework, but I don't see how you're off the hook. Imagine
you're under time pressure to get a release out and you realize
It is not just you. I was pretty disappointed when I read that post,
too. I did get a kick out of seeing what a menacing appearance Dan has
with his new beard and moustache, though;)
I am amazed that Google seems to think it is acceptable to force the
user to maintain two different build systems
I agree that from the description in his post, it is not really clear
that it gets him off the hook at all. But perhaps he was assuming
the reader knows something about maven.
But I am more concerned about his step 3, which sounds like a recipe
for trouble: copying the build. Now how do you
Xavier stated in another thread that in the next release there will be
built-in support for proguard in Eclipse. I can't find a link right now,
but the last discussion on it was earlier today or yesterday.
Justin
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Indicator Veritatis mej1...@yahoo.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Justin Giles jtgi...@gmail.com wrote:
Xavier stated in another thread that in the next release there will be
built-in support for proguard in Eclipse. I can't find a link right now,
but the last discussion on it was earlier today or yesterday.
Justin
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Indicator Veritatis mej1...@yahoo.comwrote:
But rather than run for the hills, we should pepper Google with
uncomplimentary speculations concerning their motives for this turd
layering until they 'fess up and give us a release date for a version
of ADT that
Hi Dianne,
I was one of the people eagerly awaiting to read how to add Proguard
to my workflow. I'm still learning java and getting used to working
in eclipse. After reading the blog entry, all I could think was,
Wow! This is getting crazy. I was really hoping for some integrated
solution
35 matches
Mail list logo
