It looks like the main difference is that embedded assets like the BusyCursor and Drag cursors are not as efficiently stored as they used to be. In Adobe SDKs, the assets came from a SWF. For Apache, we had to convert the assets to FXG. I thought the FXG compiler would do a better job of converting FXG back to SWF assets, but it seems to be using a lot of extra Sprites and Shapes because the FXG has a lot of what seem to be unnecessary Groups.
-Alex On 7/9/13 9:37 AM, "João Fernandes" <[email protected]> wrote: >Ok done! > >Thanks! > > >On 9 July 2013 17:28, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > >> João, >> >> >> The mail filters blocked it. Try making the suffix of the link reports >> something like .xml or .txt and send again. I think it doesn't like >>.lnk. >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> >> On 7/9/13 9:25 AM, "João Fernandes" >><[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >Thanks Alex for your time, I've zipped and sent 2 zip files with those >> >report size files. >> > >> >Thank you once again for taking a look at it. >> > >> >João Fernandes >> > >> > >> >On 9 July 2013 17:04, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> João, >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you generate a link-report for 4.6 and 4.9.1 and email it to me >> >> directly? >> >> >> >> Are you using Spark DG in the app? I did see additional assets >>added to >> >> the default DG styles to support drag/drop. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> On 7/9/13 8:57 AM, "João Fernandes" >> >><[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >What do you mean Tom? for testing purpose I've compiled the same >>app / >> >> >modules with both 4.5.2 / 4.6.0 / 4.9.1 and for each file there is a >> >>file >> >> >size increase with the exact same build mechanism, where isn't that >>"an >> >> >issue"? I agree (from the beginning) that it might not be a major >>issue >> >> >but >> >> >it's one nevertheless. >> >> > >> >> >What I've reported form the size-report is the difference from MXMLC >> >>for >> >> >each SDK Version so clearly, the compiler is adding stuff which >>wasn't >> >> >doing previously. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >On 9 July 2013 16:21, Tom Chiverton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Given you don't even get the same file from two compiles of the >>same >> >> >>code >> >> >> at different times, I think 'issue' is stretching it ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 09/07/2013 15:18, João Fernandes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> 4.5.2 was a prerelease version which we accepted it as good >>enough >> >>(no >> >> >>> signed RSLs) and never upgraded to 4.6.0. We're now upgrading to >> >>Apache >> >> >>> 4.9.1 and having this "small" issue. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 9 July 2013 15:08, David Hamiter >> >> >>>>><intoxopox@professorfripples.**com<[email protected]>> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Sorry to be a bit off topic, but I'm curious, João... where did >>you >> >> >>>find >> >> >>>> Flex SDK 4.5.2? Was that a nightly build or something? The only >> >> >>>>official >> >> >>>> 4.5 I can find is 4.5.1.21328A. If your copy of 4.5.2 appears >> >>stable, >> >> >>>>I >> >> >>>> would love to get a copy of it. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> David Hamiter >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: João Fernandes >> >> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:27 AM >> >> >>>> To: [email protected] >> >> >>>> Subject: Re: bigger swfs in 4.9.1 >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Ok, I've compared size-report from 4.5.2 and 4.9.1 and I'm >>noticing >> >> >>>>that >> >> >>>> both frames have grown in size, 1.1k in frame 1 and 4k in frame >>2. >> >> >>>> I've noticed that there are 132 new sprite entries and 159 new >> >>shape >> >> >>>> entries, is this expected? >> >> >>>> I've compared 4.5.2 with 4.6.0 and 4.6.0 and they are almost >> >>identical >> >> >>>> (4.6 >> >> >>>> produces even better results). >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> João Fernandes >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 9 July 2013 08:27, João Fernandes >><joaopedromartinsfernandes@** >> >> >>>> gmail.com >> >> >>>><joaopedromartinsfernandes@**gmail.com >> >> <joaopedromartinsfernandes@gmail. >> >> >>>>com> >> >> >>>> >>wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 9 July 2013 01:51, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Those shouldn't affect SWF size. But any changes to classes >>that >> >> >>>>>go in >> >> >>>>>> Frame 1 like SystemManager, or in generated code (like the CSS >> >>data) >> >> >>>>>> could >> >> >>>>>> make for larger SWFs. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Alex, I don't think it's related to CSS since I see the >> >>increase >> >> >>>>>>in >> >> >>>>>> size >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> just by switching SDKs and comparing generated file sizes, >>unless >> >>the >> >> >>>>> compiler suffered changes, no? Do you think it will be easier >>to >> >>find >> >> >>>>> the >> >> >>>>> culprint comparing report-size files? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> -- >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> João Fernandes >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> João Fernandes >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> > >> >> >João Fernandes >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> > >> >João Fernandes >> >> > > >-- > >João Fernandes
