Yeah, it is possible that the –frame option doesn’t work with RSLs. I’m not
sure how much testing the –frame option got.
On 3/30/13 7:34 AM, glasheen56 glash...@hotmail.com wrote:
Thanks for replying Alex!
When I don't use frame 3, the size report says there's no UIComponent in the
Flex swf. I assume it's because I'm using RSL's. IUIComponent is there, but
it's very small.
Regarding the swf size, when I use frame 3, frame 2 alone is bigger than the
whole swf was without frame 3. So unless I can sort this out, I gain nothing
from using frame 3.
Could it be that -frame doesn't play nice with RSL's? It looks like it's
merging all the framework classes into the swf (in frame 2) when I use frame 3,
instead of treating them as RSL's.
I'm using Flex 4.6.
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com , Alex
Harui aharui@... wrote:
In a Flex SWF, UIComponent is always in frame 2.
Also, the app should start to run when frame 2 loads while the other frames
stream in.
On 3/29/13 6:52 AM, glasheen56 glasheen@... wrote:
I just tried, for the first time, the trick where you use -frame to put
assets in frame 3 of a swf. It worked, except that the swf file size grew so
large it defeated the purpose of loading the assets late.
I did a size report and saw that frame 2 now includes a lot of classes it
didn't need before, like UIComponent, and these are bloating the swf. If I
remove frame 3, these extra classes go away.
1. Anyone have an idea why this is happening? I'm stumped. I tried using
-externs to remove UIComponent from the swf but it had no effect.
2. If I abandon the frame 3 approach and use an assets module instead, will I
run into a similar problem?
Thanks
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
