User Activity

  • Modified a comment on discussion Open Discussion on ProGuard Java Optimizer and Obfuscator

    What about adding a -remove rule that could partially negate a previous -keep rule ? -keep public class * { public protected *; } -remove public class * { public protected static final % <fields>; public protected static final java.lang.String <fields> }

  • Posted a comment on discussion Open Discussion on ProGuard Java Optimizer and Obfuscator

    What about adding a -remove rule that could partially negate a previous -keep rule ? -keep public class * { public protected *; } -remove public class * { public protected static final % <fields>; public protected static final java.lang.String <field> }

  • Posted a comment on discussion Open Discussion on ProGuard Java Optimizer and Obfuscator

    Thanks for this fast answer. Common non-primitive, non-String final static are enums or instances of any immutable classes. So positive patterns are a bit dangerous: we risk to have a new field removed while it should not.

  • Modified a comment on discussion Open Discussion on ProGuard Java Optimizer and Obfuscator

    Hi, I came across a use case that looks common and I didn't find a proper solution with proguard 6.0.3: I'm building a library jar, where all public members are entry points. But I would like to derive a "runtime only" jar, stripped of all primitive and String static final fields that are normally inlined during compilation. Here is what I ended with : keep public class { public protected <methods>; public protected !final <fields>; public protected !static <fields>; public protected ** *; } This...

  • Modified a comment on discussion Open Discussion on ProGuard Java Optimizer and Obfuscator

    Hi, I came across a use case that looks common and I didn't find a proper solution with proguard 6.0.3: I'm building a library jar, where all public members are entry points. But I would like to derive a "runtime only" jar, stripped of all primitive and String static final fields that are normally inlined during compilation. Here is what I ended with : keep public class { public protected <methods>; public protected !final <fields>; public protected !static <fields>; public protected * ; } This should...

  • Posted a comment on discussion Open Discussion on ProGuard Java Optimizer and Obfuscator

    Hi, I came across a use case that looks common and I didn't find a proper solution with proguard 6.0.3: I'm building a library jar, where all public members are entry points. But I would like to derive a "runtime only" jar, stripped of all primitive and String static final fields that are normally inlined during compilation. Here is what I ended with : keep public class { public protected ; public protected !final ; public protected !static ; public protected ; } This should keep all public members...

View All

Personal Data

Username:
xyphus
Joined:
2004-10-11 20:55:19

Projects

  • No projects to display.

Personal Tools