Hi,
1) I tried to assemble a very large IL file (~290 MB), and ILASM was not able to read any tokens after a certain point! Instead giving a syntax error on an incomplete token.
Is there any solution available for this problem?
2) why was the "owner" option removed from the ILASM beta? It would have been useful to prevent reverse engineering of code...
regards
Shripal Meghani
Richard A. Lowe - 23 Jan 2004 07:46 GMT
Well I won't speak for the tool, but 290 MB seems pretty excessive.
Assuming there's just a lot of classes in there, there's no good reason to
have all that in one Assembly (if you have that much 'internal' access
between classes, I'd suggest there's a design issue). Can you not just
compile multiple assemblies?
R.

Signature
C#, .NET and Complex Adaptive Systems:
http://blogs.geekdojo.net/Richard
> Hi,
> 1) I tried to assemble a very large IL file (~290 MB), and ILASM was not able to read any tokens after a certain point! Instead giving a syntax error
on an incomplete token.
> Is there any solution available for this problem?
> 2) why was the "owner" option removed from the ILASM beta? It would have been useful to prevent reverse engineering of code...
>
> regards
> Shripal Meghani
mikeb - 23 Jan 2004 15:10 GMT
> Hi,
> 1) I tried to assemble a very large IL file (~290 MB), and ILASM was not able to read any tokens after a certain point! Instead giving a syntax error on an incomplete token.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> regards
> Shripal Meghani
I can't speak to the large file issue, but the "owner" option was
removed simply because it really provided no security, only the
*appearance* of security. The IL was still openly available to any
tool. It was up to the tool to enforce the flag.

Signature
mikeb
Michael Giagnocavo [MVP] - 24 Jan 2004 00:34 GMT
What's the scenario for 290MB of IL?
Also, the owner option was pointless -- it's so easy to get around, all it'd
do is give people a false sense of security.
-mike
> Hi,
> 1) I tried to assemble a very large IL file (~290 MB), and ILASM was not able to read any tokens after a certain point! Instead giving a syntax error
on an incomplete token.
> Is there any solution available for this problem?
> 2) why was the "owner" option removed from the ILASM beta? It would have been useful to prevent reverse engineering of code...
>
> regards
> Shripal Meghani