3

Let's say I have this Java app:

package com.site; public class MyAppBase {} 
package com.site.free; import com.site.MyAppBase; public class MyApp extends MyAppBase {} 
package com.site.pro; import com.site.MyAppBase; public class MyApp extends MyAppBase {} 
package com.site; public class Edition { public static final int FREE = 1; public static final int PRO = 2; private static final int EDITION = PRO; public static boolean is(final int edition) { return (EDITION == edition); } } 
package com.site; public class EditionFactory { public static MyAppBase get_app() { MyAppBase ret = null; if (Edition.is(Edition.FREE)) ret = new com.site.free.MyApp(); else if (Edition.is(Edition.PRO)) ret = new com.site.pro.MyApp(); return ret; } }

Now, any combination of ProGuard configuration I'm trying to get rid of the non-selected edition (in this case it's FREE) doesn't work.

By "getting rid of" I mean make the actual class disappear (as well from the calling code).

In other words, a call like this:

final MyAppBase app = EditionFactory.get_app();

.. is currently being translated to, after ProGuarding it, this:

if (a.a(1)) localObject5 = new c(); // <<< FREE else if (a.a(2)) localObject5 = new d(); // <<< PRO

.. while I'd wish it to be translated to this:

localObject5 = new d(); // <<< PRO only in the code (as set at Edition.EDITION)

Bottom line is (besides the fact that ProGuard is GREAT!!), I can't seem to make it "see through" and understand that Edition.is() is a boolean function returning a constant which makes it ok to remove some classes.

I've tried configurations like:

-keep,allowshrinking,allowoptimization public class * extends com.site.MyAppBase -optimizationpasses 10

.. nothing works.

On the other hand, if I refer to Edition.EDITION and comparing it inlined (i.e without any "proxy" functions), the Java compiler (v1.6) detects it and remove the whole reference to the non-selected edition/class.
This results in that ProGuard removes/shrinks the unused class which is great.

The only issue here is about maintaining - I'd be happy to keep being able to use the EditionFactory style.

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

The optimization isn't performed because ProGuard decides not to inline the method Edition#is, so it then can't simplify the resulting series of instructions. The method is not inlined because it is not very short and it is also invoked more than once. You could work around the first criterion with this undocumented JVM option for ProGuard:

-Dmaximum.inlined.code.length=16

Alternatively, you could work around the second criterion, by making sure the method is only invoked once:

return Edition.is(Edition.FREE) ? new com.site.free.MyApp() : new com.site.pro.MyApp();

Alternatively, you could probably create short functions isFree() and isPro(), because they would return constants, which would be inlined.

It's a good practice to check the processed code if you're expecting some particular optimizations, because they are often subject to complex constraints.

Nice to hear that you like ProGuard.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

1

It is because your method is(...) can take in more values than 1 and 2 only. It could be called elsewhere from the code with 3, 4, 6... Proguard cannot exclude that case.

The solution to your issue is to make Edition an enum. You would not need the is(...) method anymore and could rely on equals(...).

Improve this answer

4 Comments

Do you mean making Edition an enum?
Oops, sorry, typo, I meant Edition.
@Poni It should work if EDITION is an enum value of Edition and if it is static final. If you only have two values, you can try with a boolean too.
@JVerstry I understand what you're saying, it doesn't work, try it yourself.. Will be interesting to see if someone comes up with an answer to that.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.