We closed this forum 18 June 2010. It has served us well since 2005 as the ALPHA forum did before it from 2002 to 2005. New discussions are ongoing at the new URL http://forum.processing.org. You'll need to sign up and get a new user account. We're sorry about that inconvenience, but we think it's better in the long run. The content on this forum will remain online.
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
ProGuard (Read 1887 times)
mkn
ProGuard
Nov 6th, 2005, 11:27am  
Hey,

Have you guys got shrinking with ProGuard working with Processing Alpha 009x? I remeber doing some testing that worked with the old beta versions but now they just freeze after pg.

Yours
Mkn.
Back to top
 
WWW  
mkn
Re: ProGuard
Reply #1 - Nov 6th, 2005, 4:28pm  
I did some further testing, this time by manually removing classes from the Applet.JAR/Processing/Core.

From what I know the sketch I was testing with would be using nothing more than PGraphics3 and PImage. PApplet, PConstants and PGraphics are obviously required. But still, only PFont and PGraphics2 could be removed and the JAR kept working.

Is it possible that dependencies could be altered somehow so that classes could be excluded from the JAR when not used in the sketch?

With all respect, but a compressed 200KB core is pretty heavy when it has to be included in every little applet no matter how simple...


Another idea would be to do a Processing Plug-In for the most common browsers with an auto-updating core and have only ultraminimal downloads of 10KBs and such for every sketch (+graphics and sound etc of course). A plug-in would also open up for other possibilities such as openGL support, acquire data outside applet dir without signing applets, maybe quicker loading times of graphics and better sound support...? Anyway. This is just an idea (that I guess many have already had before..).
Back to top
 
WWW  
fry
Re: ProGuard
Reply #2 - Nov 7th, 2005, 3:19pm  
from the faq: http://processing.org/faq/bugs.html#known

"The size of exported applets is larger than we would like, but we'll get things smaller and more optimize again. Having separated the 2D and 3D libraries, eventually we won't have to include the 3D code when using 2D. (Bug 127)."

http://dev.processing.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=127
Back to top
 
WWW  
mkn
Re: ProGuard
Reply #3 - Nov 8th, 2005, 4:03am  

Ok. Sorry about that. I reflected on it as architecture rather than as a bug.
Back to top
 
WWW  
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›