On 10/05/2013 08:01 AM, David Unric wrote:
> Jeremy Bopp wrote in post #1123504:
>>
>> I don't think you were misunderstood at all.  According to the
>> documentation, RubyEncoder will do exactly what you want.  It should be
>> invisible to your users, and will prevent trivial access to your
>> sources.  It should also be more robust against reversal than a simple
>> obfuscation tool is likely to be.
> 
> I'm sorry, but RubyEncoder does *not* do what I want. According to the 
> following post https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/168409#741854 it does 
> not mangle object identifiers so besides some other kind of protection, 
> original code including original identifiers can be retrieved back. This 
> is a big no-no for me.

You've done more research than I have on RubyEncoder.  Still, that post
is from 2008.  Have you tested to see if the current version is just as
easily circumvented?

I get it now that you have a very particular solution you're looking to
use.  Don't let your preconceptions blind you to other possible
solutions though.

Did you consider my suggestion to convert the essential core of your
code into a C-based Ruby extension?  Again, it's clear that this
solution isn't what you originally asked for.  Just curious.

Robert has posted some pretty good points about why it would be
extremely challenging to do what you're proposing.  That's not to say
you couldn't find a way, but it seems that it's a project you would have
to bake for yourself.  If you succeed in finding or building such a
thing, I'm certain there would be interest.  At least the company I work
for would likely take a look if you publish it.

Please do post again with details if you're successful in solving this
the way you originally planned.

-Jeremy