Hello All:
I am currently testing a cgi project with /View on my machine at home.
Once concluded, I will then upload the script to my domain, which
has /core installed there.
I would presume that /core because of it's smaller size would load and
execute the script faster. If I'm correct, then that would be an advantage.
Also, I know that at least a couple of wireless companies that are
specifically
interested in /core because of the smaller footprint.
I'd welcome comments here on my assumption....
Thanks
Tim
At 12:08 PM 6/2/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Yes. View is built on Core.
>
>Currently, however, the Core used with View is 6 months beyond that
provided by the 2.2 Core on our web site. It is our desire to fix that
with a 2.3 release. But, if you need a more advanced (and bug fixed) Core,
use View.
>
>I have not used Core for several months... As View does all Core functions
plus more.
>
>-Carl
>
>
>At 6/2/00 11:12 AM -0400, you wrote:
>>(WinNT) (Amiga v. tomorrow...)
>>
>>What exactly is the relationship between Core and View?
>>
>>The latest View beta (nice installer!) creates a REBOL folder with a View
folder
>>inside it.
>>Should Core reside in a "Core" folder in the same REBOL folder? ie., since I
>>installed Core manually, I'll move it from it's current location and fix any
>>shortcuts, etc. Does View encapsulate all the Core functionality? If not,
why
>>are the EXEs named the same? Are the scripts that I downloaded while
installing
>>View the same ones that I got from www.rebol.com when I installed Core? What
>>about the documentation?
>>
>>etc. etc. etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Pete Wason|"LWATPLOTG"|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|CUCUG|TA|PHX
>>
>>Get a cool electronic checking account at:
>>https://preview.x.com/new_account.asp?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
