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
