Great; thanks. I guess I'll play with the SWCs then which will make my life easier anyway.
sj ________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffry Houser Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:26 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: SWC's vs. source We are told that the SWF compiler optimizes to remove unused classes. However, I have had some inconsistent results: http://www.flextras.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/6/25/How-does-SWC-size-affet -SWF-size <http://www.flextras.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/6/25/How-does-SWC-size-affe t-SWF-size> I suspect--but never verified--that this is due to static classes or classes w/ static methods. --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Scott" <h...@...> wrote: > > What about file size? Does it link the whole SWC into the final > product? > > > > Scott > > > > ________________________________ > > From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of Oleg Sivokon > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:04 PM > To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [flexcoders] SWC's vs. source > > > > > > Generally, SWC should be more efficient in terms of compilation time > since you will be using already compiled code vs the code the compiler > still needs to analyse or resources to encode. > > However, I haven't benchmarked that. So, could be there's something > which escaped my attention. > > > > Best. > > > > Oleg > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/ <http://www.mailscanner.info/> > , and is > > believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean.
