The PerimeterX mobile SDK aar in JFrog is obfuscated and there is no accompanying javadoc or sources aar. This makes it difficult to use. In addition, the android sdk integration guide on the web is written for an older version of the SDK.
Exclude the public API from obfuscation/minification. You want to obfuscate in order to annoy the bad-guys who would try to circumvent what PerimeterX does? Cool, apply obfuscation to the internal secret-sauce. But no need to frustrate legitimate customers in the process. The API surface that's designed to be invoked from customer code should retain descriptive parameter names, comments & docs.
Add javadoc aars to the JFrog repository. Being able to hover over a method name in the IDE and see what parameters are required and what the do really lowers the barrier to integration.
The PerimeterX mobile SDK aar in JFrog is obfuscated and there is no accompanying javadoc or sources aar. This makes it difficult to use. In addition, the android sdk integration guide on the web is written for an older version of the SDK.
The code sample in this repo helps some, but still leaves questions. For example, what is the purpose of the boolean 4th parameter in
PerimeterX.INSTANCE.start(application, appId, this, true)
?The following would make the SDK more usable:
Exclude the public API from obfuscation/minification. You want to obfuscate in order to annoy the bad-guys who would try to circumvent what PerimeterX does? Cool, apply obfuscation to the internal secret-sauce. But no need to frustrate legitimate customers in the process. The API surface that's designed to be invoked from customer code should retain descriptive parameter names, comments & docs.
Add javadoc aars to the JFrog repository. Being able to hover over a method name in the IDE and see what parameters are required and what the do really lowers the barrier to integration.