[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmlblaster] ProGuard

Hi Nelson,

inEvo wrote:

I've been able to create the jar.. still the xmlBlasterClient.jar is not included in the produced jar... i'll look into that later...
I've also built the lightest client possible (without support for almost any protocol) and it's still ver 3 M!

Could some of those who experimented with Ofuscators like ProGuard share their experiences and results?

I haven't done it myself (I am not a big fan of proguard). I know you have to do some work in explicitly specifiying the classes which are loaded by reflection and the classes which are not used in the library itself. This probably involves a lot of trial/error.

Basically you could go two ways: Either you strip down the library or otherwise you strip down the library together with your application. The benefit of choosing the second approach is that you don't need to take care about classes not used by just your application (and therefore reducing the size even more).

Why does the final jar keep the demo apps? Do we have to trim the jar done ourselves?

Again I believe this was not stripped down to a minimum. Of course you could do it more restrictively.

I'm sorry for asking so many questions but i have to port an application which used .NEt WebServices and Remoting .. and convincing the people involved to use an OpenSource Project like XmlBlaster for messaging purposes is not an easy task ;)

I think one of the tasks we also need to acheave is to more cleanly separate the packages used by the serverside from these used in the client side.

This involves some cleanup work, particularly in the utility packages and in the socket protocol (where there are some interesting parsing classes which could be used elsewhere too).

Nelson Silva