One other thought about patching stacks...
Remember that MC's stackfile format changed at certain version
releases. That may have an effect on your success, depending on
the version of the engine that runs thing you're patching, and
what kinds of objects are included in or affected by the patch.
Phil
"Raymond E. Griffith" wrote:
>
> >
> > on 9/16/00 12:59 AM, Andy Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I am trying to write a patch to an existing application.
> >
> and on 9/17/2000 5:10 AM, Geoff Canyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> suggested:
>
> > Two other possible solutions, which may or may not violate your license,
> > would be:
> >
> > 1. Instead of trying to copy the new stuff into the old stack, copy the
> > user-customized stuff out of the old stack into the new stack. This doesn't
> > really qualify as a "patch" in my book, but depending on your goals might do
> > the trick.
> >
> This should work. I think. There was a situation some time back that I had
> trouble with pasting an object created in a full version using an unlicensed
> one...
>
> > 2. Edit the old stack as a pure text object. Obviously this is tricky, not
> > recommended, perhaps not possible at all, possibly a violation of the
> > license agreement, and in general Not A Good Idea. But it would certainly
> > not produce the script limits problem your current method does.
> >
> > gc
> But this will not work for two reasons. First of all, the stack is binary,
> not text. Editing as text means also saving as text, thus destroying the
> stack. Even if your stack has a .txt ending, it is still written as a
> binfile.
>
> I tried opening a stack I had so edited. Kablooey.
>
> And even so, there are some things that should not be done wrg the license
> agreement. If changes in the stack's script need to be done so that the
> scriptlimits are not violated.
>
> And there *are* ways to legally handle scripting with the unlicensed version
> so that you are doing everything you want to do. I know. I have been doing
> it for some time. I never violate the scriptlimits, yet I can do a great
> deal. Basically it involves placing code in non-script places, as custom
> properties, and running them with do statements. There are also other
> techniques. If you want to know more, start a new thread and ask.
>
> One other suggestion. Create the stack with other stacks as plugins that
> your main stack accesses. You can upgrade the plug-in.
>
> Raymond
>
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
> Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
> Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
--
Phil Davis
-----------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
days: (503) 417-7930
eves: (503) 557-5656
-----------------------------------
Facilitator
Essentials of eBusiness Computing
Information Technology Institute
http://www.iti.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
