RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

Deflection of discussion.  What scares runrev people about exporting platform 
independent source code?  I certainly hit a nerve.   

-Original Message-
From: Alejandro Tejada 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:37 PM
To: use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


Hi Chipp,


Chipp Walters-2 wrote:
> 
> I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with your brain. Have you
> not bothered listening to anything that has been said here or on the web? 
> [snip]
> Actually, the jokes on me. You are clearly a troll. Not interested in any
> sort of logical discourse, only in stirring the pot.
> [snip]
> 

After reading Randall answers, i have concluded that many of you
have been talking to one of his artificial inteligence experiments.
Maybe an "email bot" that he programmed.

There are certain patterns in his answers that result familiar.
Where i have seen these kind of answers???

Then i remember, Chat bots developers use similar language patterns
to program their "answers". 

I saw these patterns, time ago, while porting a HyperCard stack to
this platform:
http://andregarzia.on-rev.com/alejandro/stacks/spectresmart.zip

Many years ago, someone mentioned in this list that him/her/them was
working in a revTalk port of ALICE. I just keep wondering if that
project was completed sucessfully...

Alejandro


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Check-out-Jerry-s-new-videos-tp2135722p2165001.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Alejandro Tejada]

Hi Chipp,


Chipp Walters-2 wrote:
> 
> I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with your brain. Have you
> not bothered listening to anything that has been said here or on the web? 
> [snip]
> Actually, the jokes on me. You are clearly a troll. Not interested in any
> sort of logical discourse, only in stirring the pot.
> [snip]
> 

After reading Randall answers, i have concluded that many of you
have been talking to one of his artificial inteligence experiments.
Maybe an "email bot" that he programmed.

There are certain patterns in his answers that result familiar.
Where i have seen these kind of answers???

Then i remember, Chat bots developers use similar language patterns
to program their "answers". 

I saw these patterns, time ago, while porting a HyperCard stack to
this platform:
http://andregarzia.on-rev.com/alejandro/stacks/spectresmart.zip

Many years ago, someone mentioned in this list that him/her/them was
working in a revTalk port of ALICE. I just keep wondering if that
project was completed sucessfully...

Alejandro


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Check-out-Jerry-s-new-videos-tp2135722p2165001.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Reetz]

In so many ways, Apple has done everyone a favor.  I know, I know.  Hear me out.

1. Objective C is the industry standard, and has the best compilers, it has 
become the rosetta stone of computer languages.  Only ANSI C is more standard 
and it is targeted directly to hardware (where objects really don't apply).
2. The world is going to have to build towards a standard eventually that will 
allow machine discoverable logic.  This is a salvo in that direction.
3. Its not exactly like they choose xtalk or some esoteric proprietary or Apple 
specific language.  Objective C is open, well documented, universally known, 
etc.
4. It benefits everyone in computing to begin to separate logic into 
appropriate layers that transits smoothly from general concept, to white board 
sketch, to paper prototype, to interpreted scripting, to compiled code.
5. xTalk and RunRev are ideally suited to shine in the real time interpreted 
scripting strata.
6. By translating xtalk stacks to C source, RunRev would open many many devises 
and platforms to xtalk users.
7. Done right, RunRev could license this translation tech to other language and 
IDE purveyors (Adobe, other xTalk IDE's, etc.) who would like to widen the 
reach of their product.
8. RunRev customers could use this to learn Objective C.
9. Would provide a ramp from stacks to professional development and deployment.
10. RunRev users could take advantage of the best compilers written specific to 
many different platforms.
11. RunRev users wouldn't have to shrink away from clients that ask "isn't 
xtalk just a hobbyist's computer language?"
12. RunRev would have a tendency to evolve at the speed of the marketplace as 
it's product is bound to a larger market at a deeper level.

Randall


On May 9, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> And why would they?  What is apples motivation?  Is it to piss everyone off?  
> Is it to appear anti-competitive?  Is it to kill innovation?  Is it a 
> vendetta against xtalk or other programming languages?
> 
> Look at it this way...  Lets say a some terrorists take out the world trade 
> centers with commercial jets.  You know they are all middle eastern.  Do you 
> stop all middle eastern looking people from traveling?  Well you would have 
> to if you didn't have scanners.  With scanners you can bypass a person's 
> appearance and only hassle those holding weapons.  By having access to source 
> in one language, apple can scan apps to insure safety and other apple 
> specific interests and still allow everyone to "free to move about the 
> airplane".
> 
> Randall
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Yennie 
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 7:40 PM
> To: How to use Revolution 
> Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone
> 
> Josh,
> 
> Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would 
> inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple 
> could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, "J. Landman Gay"  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>>> 
 RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
 Strange choice as for me.
 Main engine should go to C,
 Some parts of REV project also to C
 And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
>>> 
>>> This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All 
>>> work must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
>> 
>> Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
>> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
>> Text is text.
>> 
>> I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures 
>> that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk 
>> expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there 
>> would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned 
>> items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using 
>> the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

And why would they?  What is apples motivation?  Is it to piss everyone off?  
Is it to appear anti-competitive?  Is it to kill innovation?  Is it a vendetta 
against xtalk or other programming languages?

Look at it this way...  Lets say a some terrorists take out the world trade 
centers with commercial jets.  You know they are all middle eastern.  Do you 
stop all middle eastern looking people from traveling?  Well you would have to 
if you didn't have scanners.  With scanners you can bypass a person's 
appearance and only hassle those holding weapons.  By having access to source 
in one language, apple can scan apps to insure safety and other apple specific 
interests and still allow everyone to "free to move about the airplane".

Randall

-Original Message-
From: Brian Yennie 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 7:40 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

Josh,

Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would 
inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple 
could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.

> 
> 
> On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, "J. Landman Gay"  
> wrote:
> 
>> Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>> 
>>> RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
>>> Strange choice as for me.
>>> Main engine should go to C,
>>> Some parts of REV project also to C
>>> And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
>> 
>> This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work 
>> must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
> 
> Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
> Text is text.
> 
> I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures 
> that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk 
> expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there 
> would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned 
> items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using 
> the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[tsj]

On 10/05/10 12:40 PM, "Brian Yennie"  wrote:

> Josh,
> 
> Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would
> inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple
> could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.
> 

This is all getting a bit circular but you could argue that there is nothing
wrong with that given that the core Rev code was all originally written in a
valid language (C or whatever). You'd still have a problem with your own
(translated from Rev to objective-C) code portions though.

Terry...


>> 
>> On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, "J. Landman Gay" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>>> 
 RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
 Strange choice as for me.
 Main engine should go to C,
 Some parts of REV project also to C
 And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
>>> 
>>> This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work
>>> must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
>> 
>> Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there,
>> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode.
>> Text is text.
>> 
>> I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures
>> that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk
>> expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there
>> would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned
>> items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using
>> the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: iRev Functionality

[stephen barncard]

What's the best way to identify Mick and Keith?






faceprint.

On 9 May 2010 17:56, Michael Kann  wrote:

> Stephen, thanks for the info.
>
> You might enjoy this:
>
> When George Melly asked Mick Jagger how his face got so many creases, he
> said "laughter lines." "Nothing is that funny," Melly replied.
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 5/9/10, stephen barncard 
> wrote:
>
> > From: stephen barncard 
> > Subject: Re: iRev Functionality
> > To: "How to use Revolution" 
> > Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 5:53 PM
> > The 'early release notes' and the
> > quick update email are what I have to
> > refer to for on-rev:
> >
> > http://samples.on-rev.com/irev-engine-notes.txt
> >   (mark's original notes)
> >
> > here's additional info from a later mark w. email
> > -snip---
> > on-rev clients
> >
> > * Mac OS X: http://www.on-rev.com/templates/onrev/files/onrevosx.dmg
> > * Windows: http://www.on-rev.com/templates/onrev/files/onrevwindows.exe
> >
> > New Features:
> >
> > new errormode property which specifies how error messages
> > are handled
> > • inline: display errors html formatted within page
> > output
> > • stderr: errors are not displayed but will appear in
> > server error logs
> > • quiet: no error display
> >
> > New $_POST_RAW variable
> >
> > Fixes:
> >
> > • include of empty file name no longer outputs spurious
> > characters, now
> > throws an appropriate error (bad filename)
> > • engine crash when setting http headers
> > • PATH_TRANSLATED now contains the path to the running
> > script file when the
> > requested url contains extra path info after the script
> > path
> > • PATH_INFO contains the extra path info
> >
> >
> > -snip---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 May 2010 13:26, J. Landman Gay 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Kann wrote:
> > >
> > >> --
> > >> Thomas McGrath III asked:
> > >> --
> > >> Where is there a list of iRev commands available?
> > >>
> > >> I just tried revSpeak in iRev and got a handler
> > not found error and
> > >>
> > > > would like to know what else is not available.
> > >
> > > The most complete reference right now is the
> > dictionary. Make sure you have
> > > Rev's preferences set to show the "class" and
> > "platforms" columns so you
> > > don't have to look up each term. If a term is
> > supported for iRev it will say
> > > "server". The Rev speech commands are listed there as
> > compatible, but I see
> > > the opposite in some very early notes released last
> > summer. Those old notes
> > > say that the only externals available for iRev work
> > are revzip, revdb, and
> > > revxml.
> > >
> > >
> > >  Jacqueline, is the updated change log available
> > anywhere?
> > >>
> > > > I'm most interested in the differences between
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 1. the most up-to-date reference for irev scripts
> > (the change log I
> > >> assume)
> > >>
> > >> 2. the dictionary that comes with 4.0
> > >>
> > >> 3. cgi scripts used with the 3.5 engine
> > >>
> > >>
> > > When using iRev scripts, the up-to-date reference and
> > the dictionary are
> > > pretty much the same thing, except that the dictionary
> > omits iRev-specific
> > > terms that don't apply to desktop apps. I have some
> > early release notes but
> > > I can't recall where I got them; I think they arrived
> > when I got my iRev
> > > account and downloaded the on-rev app. Those notes
> > list some new variables
> > > applicable only to iRev scripting, which include
> > $_SERVER, $_POST,
> > > $_POST_RAW, $_GET, "put new header", "put content",
> > includes, and an
> > > errormode property that determines where script errors
> > are sent. Other than
> > > that, most native terms are available as per the
> > dictionary listing.
> > >
> > > For CGIs, there are a few more limitations. The CGI
> > script itself can't
> > > load externals (because those can only be loaded into
> > a stack) or refer to
> > > anything that requires a GUI. I.e., a CGI script can't
> > refer to "this card"
> > > because there aren't any cards, it's just a text
> > script. Mouse events,
> > > functions that work with objects, etc. aren't
> > applicable in a text-only
> > > environment. Many of those limitations can be overcome
> > by loading a real
> > > stack as a library when the CGI starts up. In that
> > case, you do have a stack
> > > running, and stack references, object functions, etc.
> > will work. Even so,
> > > some things will still fail if they aren't relevant to
> > a server environment.
> > > For example, there is no keyboard or mouse available
> > to the CGI so functions
> > > like "the mouseloc" or "keydown" will fail.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jacqueline Landman Gay
> >| jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> > > HyperActive Software
> >| http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> > > ___
> > > use-revolution mailing list
> > > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> > >

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Brian Yennie]

Josh,

Except, if a tool like Rev were generating the code to paste in, it would 
inevitably contain large portions of identical code across projects. Apple 
could easily ban any app that matches those very clear signatures.

> 
> 
> On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, "J. Landman Gay"  
> wrote:
> 
>> Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>> 
>>> RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
>>> Strange choice as for me.
>>> Main engine should go to C,
>>> Some parts of REV project also to C
>>> And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.
>> 
>> This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work 
>> must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.
> 
> Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
> Text is text.
> 
> I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code structures 
> that are so similar translation would be easy (if then, switch). Chunk 
> expressions are an example of something that would not translate, so there 
> would have to be a special set of handlers that split strings and returned 
> items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call these functions rather than using 
> the stock ones to make the C output feasible.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[J. Landman Gay]

Randall: Stop. We've had enough. Everyone else: don't feed it. Don't 
even answer this post to agree.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

And the sky is falling too!  You have to get your mind around the motivations 
behind apple's demands.  Do that and you won't have to move to idaho and build 
a bomb bunker.

-Original Message-
From: Chipp Walters 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 6:06 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with your brain. Have you not 
bothered listening to anything that has been said here or on the web? The whole 
point of the license is to make sure developers used Apple's and only Apple's 
tools. What part of that is hard to understand?

Actually, the jokes on me. You are clearly a troll. Not interested in any sort 
of logical discourse, only in stirring the pot. I had heard you were thrown off 
the SuperCard list for similar behavior. 

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 9, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz  wrote:

> No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
> is to control the compiling process.  That way they know what their devices 
> will be running.  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level 
> of control.  What you guys are afraid of isn't being expressed openly and 
> honestly but it has nothing to do with apple's dictates.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Chipp Walters]

I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with your brain. Have you not 
bothered listening to anything that has been said here or on the web? The whole 
point of the license is to make sure developers used Apple's and only Apple's 
tools. What part of that is hard to understand?

Actually, the jokes on me. You are clearly a troll. Not interested in any sort 
of logical discourse, only in stirring the pot. I had heard you were thrown off 
the SuperCard list for similar behavior. 

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 9, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz  wrote:

> No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
> is to control the compiling process.  That way they know what their devices 
> will be running.  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level 
> of control.  What you guys are afraid of isn't being expressed openly and 
> honestly but it has nothing to do with apple's dictates.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Chipp Walters]

Randy,

I get the fact you're not a very technology smart individual. Let me dumb it 
down a bit for you.

A tool which generates C code from xtalk code, creates similar patterns of C 
code, which when compiled, are unique, like human fingerprints. So, it's easy 
to figure out where the initial C code comes from, just as if you were trying 
to identify a person by the fingerprint they left behind.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to say it any simpler. 

Chipp Walters
CEO, Shafer Walters Group, Inc

On May 9, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Randall Lee Reetz  wrote:

> Wow, the logic in your argument makes absolutely no sence and is in no way 
> comparable in this context.
> 
> To wit.  The problem to which you allude is one of people attempting to build 
> flash apps from C source.  Of course thus would violate apples policy!  But 
> the discussion here is centered on the possibility of generating C source 
> from rev stacks and then building apple compliant apps within the apple 
> blessed IDE.  No harm, no foul, no secret sneak.
> 
> Rev, in this scenario would not be asserting any new external third party 
> protocol into the app space.  It would simple act as an app prototyping and 
> sketch helper tool.
> 
> 
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: iRev Functionality

[Michael Kann]

Stephen, thanks for the info.

You might enjoy this:

When George Melly asked Mick Jagger how his face got so many creases, he said 
"laughter lines." "Nothing is that funny," Melly replied.



--- On Sun, 5/9/10, stephen barncard  wrote:

> From: stephen barncard 
> Subject: Re: iRev Functionality
> To: "How to use Revolution" 
> Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 5:53 PM
> The 'early release notes' and the
> quick update email are what I have to
> refer to for on-rev:
> 
> http://samples.on-rev.com/irev-engine-notes.txt 
>   (mark's original notes)
> 
> here's additional info from a later mark w. email
> -snip---
> on-rev clients
> 
> * Mac OS X: http://www.on-rev.com/templates/onrev/files/onrevosx.dmg
> * Windows: http://www.on-rev.com/templates/onrev/files/onrevwindows.exe
> 
> New Features:
> 
> new errormode property which specifies how error messages
> are handled
> • inline: display errors html formatted within page
> output
> • stderr: errors are not displayed but will appear in
> server error logs
> • quiet: no error display
> 
> New $_POST_RAW variable
> 
> Fixes:
> 
> • include of empty file name no longer outputs spurious
> characters, now
> throws an appropriate error (bad filename)
> • engine crash when setting http headers
> • PATH_TRANSLATED now contains the path to the running
> script file when the
> requested url contains extra path info after the script
> path
> • PATH_INFO contains the extra path info
> 
> 
> -snip---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 May 2010 13:26, J. Landman Gay 
> wrote:
> 
> > Michael Kann wrote:
> >
> >> --
> >> Thomas McGrath III asked:
> >> --
> >> Where is there a list of iRev commands available?
> >>
> >> I just tried revSpeak in iRev and got a handler
> not found error and
> >>
> > > would like to know what else is not available.
> >
> > The most complete reference right now is the
> dictionary. Make sure you have
> > Rev's preferences set to show the "class" and
> "platforms" columns so you
> > don't have to look up each term. If a term is
> supported for iRev it will say
> > "server". The Rev speech commands are listed there as
> compatible, but I see
> > the opposite in some very early notes released last
> summer. Those old notes
> > say that the only externals available for iRev work
> are revzip, revdb, and
> > revxml.
> >
> >
> >  Jacqueline, is the updated change log available
> anywhere?
> >>
> > > I'm most interested in the differences between
> >
> >>
> >> 1. the most up-to-date reference for irev scripts
> (the change log I
> >> assume)
> >>
> >> 2. the dictionary that comes with 4.0
> >>
> >> 3. cgi scripts used with the 3.5 engine
> >>
> >>
> > When using iRev scripts, the up-to-date reference and
> the dictionary are
> > pretty much the same thing, except that the dictionary
> omits iRev-specific
> > terms that don't apply to desktop apps. I have some
> early release notes but
> > I can't recall where I got them; I think they arrived
> when I got my iRev
> > account and downloaded the on-rev app. Those notes
> list some new variables
> > applicable only to iRev scripting, which include
> $_SERVER, $_POST,
> > $_POST_RAW, $_GET, "put new header", "put content",
> includes, and an
> > errormode property that determines where script errors
> are sent. Other than
> > that, most native terms are available as per the
> dictionary listing.
> >
> > For CGIs, there are a few more limitations. The CGI
> script itself can't
> > load externals (because those can only be loaded into
> a stack) or refer to
> > anything that requires a GUI. I.e., a CGI script can't
> refer to "this card"
> > because there aren't any cards, it's just a text
> script. Mouse events,
> > functions that work with objects, etc. aren't
> applicable in a text-only
> > environment. Many of those limitations can be overcome
> by loading a real
> > stack as a library when the CGI starts up. In that
> case, you do have a stack
> > running, and stack references, object functions, etc.
> will work. Even so,
> > some things will still fail if they aren't relevant to
> a server environment.
> > For example, there is no keyboard or mouse available
> to the CGI so functions
> > like "the mouseloc" or "keydown" will fail.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jacqueline Landman Gay     
>    |     jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> > HyperActive Software       
>    |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> > ___
> > use-revolution mailing list
> > use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and
> manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -
> Stephen Barncard
> Back home in SF
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subs

Re: rev-web, revbrowser, on-rev, Linux, help!

[J. Landman Gay]

Peter Alcibiades wrote:

"By installing the RunRev 3.5 engine on any Apache server you can get just
about the same functionality as you would get on the on-rev server"

Thanks, I had not appreciated that.  Could certainly be significant.


Peter, you really should take up that offer for an iRev testing 
playground. You will be blown away by it. It's true that you can 
accomplish most of the same things using old-style CGIs, and I used to 
do that, but it's so much more difficult than the iRev way. And the iRev 
way has a cool factor you can't ignore.


Just as an example, here's a chunk out of the middle of one of my web 
pages. It cycles through images every time the page refreshes:






height="240" border="1" />



[page content HTML text removed]



The flowers you’re seeing are all from my gardens over the 
years. This one is " ?>




The main thing to note here is how you can put Rev syntax right inside 
of the HTML content and it will be interpreted before the page is sent 
back to the browser. Glance through the above and find the  
instances and you'll see.


I know you've been unhappy about the state of the Linux engine, but this 
is one thing you really can take advantage of. And it's very, very cool.


BTW, Rev allows "includes" too, and my web site uses those on every page 
to show the header, footer, and sidebar. Some of those have iRev scripts 
in them too.


To see the above in action:


I hope you'll try it, and even better, let us know what you think.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Jerry J]

Randall, do you understand that Apple never sees any source code? The XCode 
compiler does its work on YOUR computer. Apple only sees the finished object 
code. Analyzing the object code can imply what libraries were used to produce 
it, hence the problem. An intermediate step of C code that pretends to be the 
original source would help nobody. Apple would never see it!

-- the other Jerry

On May 9, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> I have expanded that.  You should read my posts before responding.  Io even 
> atomized on several occasions why apple wants in at the source level.  


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> I have expanded that.  You should read my posts before responding.  Io even 
> atomized on several occasions why apple wants in at the source level.  Try 
> yet another straw man attack.


No, I think I'll leave you to say whatever you want to say, there are too many 
of your messages to go through to see all the things you had previously said. I 
make it to be about 105 messages from you in May alone. That's quite an amount 
to keep up with!



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Three Years of Rev (was RE: Check out Jerry's new videos)

[Pierre Sahores]

Thanks for this, Lynn. Hope this can be understand as it need to be to become 
realy helpfull ;-)

Le 9 mai 2010 à 02:29, Lynn Fredricks a écrit :

> An Application Server system requires a lot of thought and investment, both
> for planning development and its relationship to "rev", and also on planning
> how to deal with market acceptance. This is a good way though for Rev to
> generate revenue on a per deployment basis.
> 
> A lot of these may sound sort of familiar ;-)
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Lynn Fredricks
> President
> Paradigma Software
> http://www.paradigmasoft.com

--
Pierre Sahores
mobile : (33) 6 03 95 77 70

www.wrds.com
www.sahores-conseil.com






___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

[OT] Connect the dots...

[Alejandro Tejada]

Hi all,

Please, read this recent news:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/05/07/apple-is-now-nintendos-biggest-problem/

Now, refresh your memory with Sony's president presentation
in MacWorld 2005:
http://www.hardwarezone.com.au/reviews/view.php?cid=47&id=1380&pg=2
http://www.engadget.com/2005/01/11/live-from-macworld-2005-steve-jobs-keynote/

Back then, Steve Jobs said:
"you know we do work very closely with Sony on digital still cameras
and these new camcorders, which is really great.
And who knows someday computers and music too."

After reading these new and old articles, i have a question:
How many months will pass before Sony or Nintendo publish many
of their games for iPhone, iPad or Android?

;-)

Alejandro
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-Connect-the-dots-tp2164815p2164815.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

I have expanded that.  You should read my posts before responding.  Io even 
atomized on several occasions why apple wants in at the source level.  Try yet 
another straw man attack.

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:26 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> Exactly . And no, I am not confused.  I have been more than careful to always 
> use the word "source" when asking for C "source" output from rev.  Source is 
> text.  Un-compiled source text.  No confusion here.  Try another straw man 
> attack?


Now i'm confused. You're pleading for Rev to output C source, presumably to 
comply with Apple's demands, but you also say that Apple isn't dictating what 
is used as source. If Apple are not dictating what source should be like, why 
have a C stage?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 7:20 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> Exactly . And no, I am not confused.  I have been more than careful to always 
> use the word "source" when asking for C "source" output from rev.  Source is 
> text.  Un-compiled source text.  No confusion here.  Try another straw man 
> attack?


Now i'm confused. You're pleading for Rev to output C source, presumably to 
comply with Apple's demands, but you also say that Apple isn't dictating what 
is used as source. If Apple are not dictating what source should be like, why 
have a C stage?
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Bernard Devlin]

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the funny side of this.

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Colin Holgate  wrote:
> So, although the best guess from Unity 30 days ago was that they would be ok, 
> they still haven't managed to get a definitive answer from Apple. Which is 
> good news, compared to a definitive "no"!
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

Should have read: "... deeply "defend-able" IP..."  Sorry.

-Original Message-
From: Randall Lee Reetz 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:16 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

There is no technical reason that rev would have to export any pre-compiled 
code objects or libraries.  Now, if what you aren't saying but meaning, is that 
rev would expose its internal data model and that this could expose the company 
to piracy of core IP, well that is an issue that should be expressed openly.  
The fact that any xtalk environment holds very little claim to deeply 
dependable IP is certainly true.  When you don't own your core IP, the only 
option is to be better than other xtalk IDEs.

The courts have repeatedly told apple that they too must compete through 
consumer choice because their IP claims are unfounded (xerox owns that).

  

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:40 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
> is to control the compiling process.

Amongst the many companies still worried about all this is Unity3D. When you 
make iPhone apps with Unity, you do the compile using Xcode, from Objective-C 
source files. But in amongst that Objective-C is the Mono system, which is what 
is used to convert your C# or Javascript to control your 3D scene. Essentially 
the same situation Rev would be facing. So, as currently written, the agreement 
blocks Unity, regardless of the fact that it's being compiled in Xcode from 
Objective-C source.


>  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level of control

And that might be part of the reason that the government will sue them.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Thomas McGrath III wrote:

> Unity3D:
> "We haven’t heard anything from Apple about this affecting us,"   &&  "Our 
> current best guess is that we’ll be fine."


That quote is from April 10th, and I check for later news perhaps several times 
a day!

I did a presentation on Friday, where I showed both Rev and Unity, and I 
emailed Kevin in case there was any news to pass on, and I emailed my buddy who 
happens to be the Evangelist at Unity. He replied, to basically say that there 
is no new news, and Kevin didn't reply at all. I had asked Kevin the question 
in a way that gave him the option to not reply, so I don't feel too hurt!

So, although the best guess from Unity 30 days ago was that they would be ok, 
they still haven't managed to get a definitive answer from Apple. Which is good 
news, compared to a definitive "no"!



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

Exactly . And no, I am not confused.  I have been more than careful to always 
use the word "source" when asking for C "source" output from rev.  Source is 
text.  Un-compiled source text.  No confusion here.  Try another straw man 
attack?

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:01 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> wrong


You may have the mistaken idea that Objective-C is compiled code, but it's not, 
it's uncompiled source text, that then gets compiled to the processor on the 
device. Apple saying that you can only use certain languages is directly 
dictating what your code looks like before it's compiled.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

There is no technical reason that rev would have to export any pre-compiled 
code objects or libraries.  Now, if what you aren't saying but meaning, is that 
rev would expose its internal data model and that this could expose the company 
to piracy of core IP, well that is an issue that should be expressed openly.  
The fact that any xtalk environment holds very little claim to deeply 
dependable IP is certainly true.  When you don't own your core IP, the only 
option is to be better than other xtalk IDEs.

The courts have repeatedly told apple that they too must compete through 
consumer choice because their IP claims are unfounded (xerox owns that).

  

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:40 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
> is to control the compiling process.

Amongst the many companies still worried about all this is Unity3D. When you 
make iPhone apps with Unity, you do the compile using Xcode, from Objective-C 
source files. But in amongst that Objective-C is the Mono system, which is what 
is used to convert your C# or Javascript to control your 3D scene. Essentially 
the same situation Rev would be facing. So, as currently written, the agreement 
blocks Unity, regardless of the fact that it's being compiled in Xcode from 
Objective-C source.


>  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level of control

And that might be part of the reason that the government will sue them.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

This is a protocol war on the surface, a malware customer protection scheme, 
and a way to know exactly what code is running on its devices, and leaves the 
door open for intentional tracer code apple could insert that would allow run 
time reporting and surveillance of app functionality.  What is at steak is 
seeing more than anyone else.  Knowing more about what is going on in its 
devices than any third party code can know.  Being the bottom most turtle.  
Give apple that and they won't care how you wrote the code.  It is that simple. 
 Ask steve.

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:24 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
> just want in before and during the compilation process.


They are trying to dictate precompiled source. That's the whole problem.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Thomas McGrath III]

Unity3D:
"We haven’t heard anything from Apple about this affecting us,"   &&  "Our 
current best guess is that we’ll be fine."

Full quote:

Unity and the iPhone OS 4.0
by David Helgason on Rants & Raves
Hey guys,I just wanted to thank our forum users for their support and 
thoughtful analyses about Apple’s new ToS (terms of service) for its iPhone OS 
4.0, due to be released this summer. As you are probably all aware by now, the 
new ToS has led to widespread speculation on blogs and in the trade press about 
how the change in wording could affect products marketed on the Apple 
AppStore.As is so often the case with “legalese,” the new ToS are difficult to 
parse with certainty and open to broad interpretation—particularly by Apple 
itself. Some have noted that the strictest possible interpretation could 
prohibit many products from being marketed on the App Store. Others have argued 
that under more benign interpretations of the new terms, Unity and others will 
be just fine.Apple has built a tremendous marketplace for all of us, and it’s 
great for those who successfully take advantage of it. The flipside, of course, 
is that the power there so clearly resides with Apple.This is certainly not the 
first time that developers of all types of apps have faced sometimes confusing 
changes in rules, or their interpretation. It’s a risk we all run in basing 
parts of our businesses on Apple.Here at Unity, we are working hard on getting 
good information, and working to understand whether – or how – the new changes 
could affect the developer community and others. We have reached out to both 
official and unofficial contacts at Apple, we are talking to other companies in 
a similar situation to us, and we’ve been diligent in reading the ToS to get to 
the best legal (and business-wise) analysis of it.We haven’t heard anything 
from Apple about this affecting us, and we believe that with hundreds of titles 
(or probably over a thousand by now), including a significant proportion of the 
best selling ones, we’re adding so much value to the iPhone ecosystem that 
Apple can’t possibly want to shut that down.Our current best guess is that 
we’ll be fine. But it would obviously be irresponsible to guarantee that. What 
I can guarantee is that we’ll continue to do everything in our power to make 
this work, and that we will be here to inform you when we know more – as soon 
as we know more.PS. In the ancient days of the App Store (July 2008), Apple 
very late changed the kernel to disallow JIT (just-in-time) compilation. What 
we did instead was spend several months changing Mono to AOT (ahead of time) 
compile scripts instead (this is why some dynamic constructs in our JavaScript 
doesn’t work on the iPhone). It was a lot of work, but we made it work to 
enable all these amazing Unity games to be sold in the App Store, many of which 
have gone on to be bestsellers and made their creators rich and famous.Thanks 
again for your support. We’re so very proud of you all.
First I would like to thank our forum users for their support and thoughtful 
analyses about Apple’s new ToS (terms of service) for iPhone OS 4.0, due to be 
released this summer.  As you are probably all aware by now, the new ToS has 
led to widespread speculation on blogs and in the press about how the change in 
wording could affect apps sold on Apple’s App Store.

As is so often the case with “legalese,” the new ToS are difficult to parse 
with certainty and open to broad interpretation – not least by Apple itself. 
Some have noted that the strictest possible interpretation could prohibit many 
products from being marketed on the App Store. Others have argued that under 
more benign interpretations of the new terms, Unity and others will be just 
fine.

Apple has built a tremendous marketplace for all of us, and it’s great for 
those who successfully take advantage of it. The flipside, of course, is that 
the power there so clearly resides with Apple.

This is certainly not the first time that developers of all types of apps have 
faced sometimes confusing changes in rules, or their interpretation. It’s a 
risk we all run in basing parts of our businesses on Apple.

Here at Unity, we are working hard on getting good information, and working to 
understand whether – or how – the new changes could affect the developer 
community and others.  We have reached out to both official and unofficial 
contacts at Apple, we are talking to other companies in a similar situation to 
us, and we’ve been diligent in reading the ToS to get to the best legal (and 
business-wise) analysis of it.

We haven’t heard anything from Apple about this affecting us, and we believe 
that with hundreds of titles (or probably over a thousand by now), including a 
significant proportion of the best selling ones, we’re adding so much value to 
the iPhone ecosystem that Apple can’t possibly want to shut that down.

Our current best guess is that we’ll be fine. But it would obviously 

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> wrong


You may have the mistaken idea that Objective-C is compiled code, but it's not, 
it's uncompiled source text, that then gets compiled to the processor on the 
device. Apple saying that you can only use certain languages is directly 
dictating what your code looks like before it's compiled.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

wrong

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:24 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone


On May 9, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
> just want in before and during the compilation process.


They are trying to dictate precompiled source. That's the whole problem.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: iRev Functionality

[stephen barncard]

The 'early release notes' and the quick update email are what I have to
refer to for on-rev:

http://samples.on-rev.com/irev-engine-notes.txt(mark's original notes)

here's additional info from a later mark w. email
-snip---
on-rev clients

* Mac OS X: http://www.on-rev.com/templates/onrev/files/onrevosx.dmg
* Windows: http://www.on-rev.com/templates/onrev/files/onrevwindows.exe

New Features:

new errormode property which specifies how error messages are handled
• inline: display errors html formatted within page output
• stderr: errors are not displayed but will appear in server error logs
• quiet: no error display

New $_POST_RAW variable

Fixes:

• include of empty file name no longer outputs spurious characters, now
throws an appropriate error (bad filename)
• engine crash when setting http headers
• PATH_TRANSLATED now contains the path to the running script file when the
requested url contains extra path info after the script path
• PATH_INFO contains the extra path info


-snip---




On 9 May 2010 13:26, J. Landman Gay  wrote:

> Michael Kann wrote:
>
>> --
>> Thomas McGrath III asked:
>> --
>> Where is there a list of iRev commands available?
>>
>> I just tried revSpeak in iRev and got a handler not found error and
>>
> > would like to know what else is not available.
>
> The most complete reference right now is the dictionary. Make sure you have
> Rev's preferences set to show the "class" and "platforms" columns so you
> don't have to look up each term. If a term is supported for iRev it will say
> "server". The Rev speech commands are listed there as compatible, but I see
> the opposite in some very early notes released last summer. Those old notes
> say that the only externals available for iRev work are revzip, revdb, and
> revxml.
>
>
>  Jacqueline, is the updated change log available anywhere?
>>
> > I'm most interested in the differences between
>
>>
>> 1. the most up-to-date reference for irev scripts (the change log I
>> assume)
>>
>> 2. the dictionary that comes with 4.0
>>
>> 3. cgi scripts used with the 3.5 engine
>>
>>
> When using iRev scripts, the up-to-date reference and the dictionary are
> pretty much the same thing, except that the dictionary omits iRev-specific
> terms that don't apply to desktop apps. I have some early release notes but
> I can't recall where I got them; I think they arrived when I got my iRev
> account and downloaded the on-rev app. Those notes list some new variables
> applicable only to iRev scripting, which include $_SERVER, $_POST,
> $_POST_RAW, $_GET, "put new header", "put content", includes, and an
> errormode property that determines where script errors are sent. Other than
> that, most native terms are available as per the dictionary listing.
>
> For CGIs, there are a few more limitations. The CGI script itself can't
> load externals (because those can only be loaded into a stack) or refer to
> anything that requires a GUI. I.e., a CGI script can't refer to "this card"
> because there aren't any cards, it's just a text script. Mouse events,
> functions that work with objects, etc. aren't applicable in a text-only
> environment. Many of those limitations can be overcome by loading a real
> stack as a library when the CGI starts up. In that case, you do have a stack
> running, and stack references, object functions, etc. will work. Even so,
> some things will still fail if they aren't relevant to a server environment.
> For example, there is no keyboard or mouse available to the CGI so functions
> like "the mouseloc" or "keydown" will fail.
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>



-- 
-
Stephen Barncard
Back home in SF
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
> is to control the compiling process.

Amongst the many companies still worried about all this is Unity3D. When you 
make iPhone apps with Unity, you do the compile using Xcode, from Objective-C 
source files. But in amongst that Objective-C is the Mono system, which is what 
is used to convert your C# or Javascript to control your 3D scene. Essentially 
the same situation Rev would be facing. So, as currently written, the agreement 
blocks Unity, regardless of the fact that it's being compiled in Xcode from 
Objective-C source.


>  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level of control

And that might be part of the reason that the government will sue them.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Josh Mellicker]

I was just speaking of a simple text parser and term search and  
replace. Certainly not worth the effort, it would be easier to just  
write in Xcode!


While you're correct about the dangers of writing for Apple, some  
developers continue to risk it because the potential  is in some cases  
quite large.


Cheers,
Josh

On May 9, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Chipp Walters  wrote:

Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs  
and the consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a  
tool to identify Flash apps created from C ported to Xcode.


The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code,  
they have to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C  
libraries have unique footprints which can easily be detected. Once  
detected, it is easy to conclude they are in violation of SDK 4.0.


And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple  
license dot dot revision away from being excluded once again. I  
don't understand why this concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If  
Apple doesn't want you to develop on their platforms, then do like  
Adobe did and give up.


Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or  
later someone is bound to create another must have software product  
with a dev environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to  
be run on iPhones and ipads.


My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I  
couldn't believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just  
to have it rejected based on arbitrary conditions. At least with  
game consoles, they can pre-accept your idea and the final check is  
only a QA one.


Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple  
can change their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment,  
and kill your company plan with an unprecedented dot dot license  
change limiting you to what "original programming language is used."  
Who ever heard of such draconian development terms?


Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky  
business indeed.


On May 9, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Josh Mellicker   
wrote:


Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app  
there, there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not  
written in Xcode. Text is text.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: rev-web, revbrowser, on-rev, Linux, help!

[Peter Alcibiades]

"By installing the RunRev 3.5 engine on any Apache server you can get just
about the same functionality as you would get on the on-rev server"

Thanks, I had not appreciated that.  Could certainly be significant.

Peter
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/rev-web-revbrowser-on-rev-Linux-help-tp2164289p2164774.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Randall Lee Reetz wrote:

> They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
> just want in before and during the compilation process.


They are trying to dictate precompiled source. That's the whole problem.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

No it isn't and I will be willing to bet a large sum that apple's only desire 
is to control the compiling process.  That way they know what their devices 
will be running.  And, importantly, they can not legally go beyond this level 
of control.  What you guys are afraid of isn't being expressed openly and 
honestly but it has nothing to do with apple's dictates.

-Original Message-
From: Andre Garzia 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:09 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

Randall,

What you fail to see again despite our insistence to tell you is that such
tool to generate C code from Rev Stacks is precisely what is now forbidden
by the new agreement. I am beginning to think that you can actually speak
English or that my English is surprisingly awful because I've told you maybe
SEVEN TIMES THIS WEEK ALONE that the new agreement prohibits generating C
code from anything. The clause says "originally written in Objective-C" and
not "Cross compiled into Objective-C".

The source of all this mayhem is the exact fact that we're legally bound to
an agreement that prevents using any kind of generator program. Generators
are not Apple Compliant no matter how many emails you send to this list,
they will still be illegal. No matter how many times we tell you that you
can't and you tell use that YES RANDALL CAN or that you know better, you
still can't. There's an agreement, a contract and developer sign that 
thing___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

They can tell of course.  But they can not dictate pre-compiled source.  They 
just want in before and during the compilation process.

-Original Message-
From: Colin Holgate 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:04 PM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

I'm sure what was in his mind was the right way around, and it is true to say 
that Apple can tell ARM code Apps that were originally Flash. It's likely they 
could tell ones that were from Rev too.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Andre Garzia]

Randall,

What you fail to see again despite our insistence to tell you is that such
tool to generate C code from Rev Stacks is precisely what is now forbidden
by the new agreement. I am beginning to think that you can actually speak
English or that my English is surprisingly awful because I've told you maybe
SEVEN TIMES THIS WEEK ALONE that the new agreement prohibits generating C
code from anything. The clause says "originally written in Objective-C" and
not "Cross compiled into Objective-C".

The source of all this mayhem is the exact fact that we're legally bound to
an agreement that prevents using any kind of generator program. Generators
are not Apple Compliant no matter how many emails you send to this list,
they will still be illegal. No matter how many times we tell you that you
can't and you tell use that YES RANDALL CAN or that you know better, you
still can't. There's an agreement, a contract and developer sign that thing.
You can't go against an agreement not matter how much you dislike it.

As I've told you BEFORE IN ALL MY PREVIOUS FOUR EMAILS TO YOU (which I don't
think you read anyway, because you keep repeating) it is not a technical
problem, it is a legal problem. Right now, unless Apple calls Kevin and the
dialog goes like:

Steve: "Yo, Sup?"
Kevin: "Sup, Steve, whats up?"
Steve: "I've seen RevMobile, launched it and BOOM in 10 minutes I got a
running iPad thingy. Which was wonderful. It really empowered me, since I
can't code in Objective-C either"
Kevin: "Oh, that's good to know. By the way Steve, thanks for this wonderful
oportunity to make your life easier. Is RevMobile allowed then?"
Steve: "Yes it is, oh, and one more thing, I think we should bundle RevMedia
with all new macs"
Kevin: "Thats bloody good, mate!"

Unless the piece above happens, then, we CAN'T GENERATE ANYTHING and be
approved for the app store. I hope we're clear.

Now, since I am a nice chap and I don't believe you read my emails at all, I
am going to repeat myself in some other languages, maybe, one of those will
ring a bell and unlock your memory and you'll recall some days ago when I
said the precise same thing:

English: YOU CAN'T USE GENERATORS
Portuguese: VOCÊ NÃO PODE USAR GERADORES
Portunhol: USTED NON PUEDES UTILIZAR GERADORES

Thanks, I hope we're now over this subject.

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Randall Lee Reetz
wrote:

> Wow, the logic in your argument makes absolutely no sence and is in no way
> comparable in this context.
>
> To wit.  The problem to which you allude is one of people attempting to
> build flash apps from C source.  Of course thus would violate apples policy!
>  But the discussion here is centered on the possibility of generating C
> source from rev stacks and then building apple compliant apps within the
> apple blessed IDE.  No harm, no foul, no secret sneak.
>
> Rev, in this scenario would not be asserting any new external third party
> protocol into the app space.  It would simple act as an app prototyping and
> sketch helper tool.
>
> Huge and incomparable difference!
>
> Randall
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chipp Walters 
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:32 AM
> To: How to use Revolution 
> Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone
>
> Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs and the
> consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a tool to identify
> Flash apps created from C ported to Xcode.
>
> The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code, they
> have to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C libraries
> have unique footprints which can easily be detected. Once detected, it is
> easy to conclude they are in violation of SDK 4.0.
>
> And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple license dot
> dot revision away from being excluded once again. I don't understand why
> this concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If Apple doesn't want you to
> develop on their platforms, then do like Adobe did and give up.
>
> Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or later
> someone is bound to create another must have software product with a dev
> environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to be run on iPhones
> and ipads.
>
> My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I
> couldn't believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just to have
> it rejected based on arbitrary conditions. At least with game consoles, they
> can pre-accept your idea and the final check is only a QA one.
>
> Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple can
> change their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment, and kill
> your company plan with an unprecedented dot dot license change limiting you
> to what "original programming language is used." Who ever heard of such
> draconian development terms?
>
> Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky business
> indeed.
>
> On May 9

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

I'm sure what was in his mind was the right way around, and it is true to say 
that Apple can tell ARM code Apps that were originally Flash. It's likely they 
could tell ones that were from Rev too.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Randall Lee Reetz]

Wow, the logic in your argument makes absolutely no sence and is in no way 
comparable in this context.

To wit.  The problem to which you allude is one of people attempting to build 
flash apps from C source.  Of course thus would violate apples policy!  But the 
discussion here is centered on the possibility of generating C source from rev 
stacks and then building apple compliant apps within the apple blessed IDE.  No 
harm, no foul, no secret sneak.

Rev, in this scenario would not be asserting any new external third party 
protocol into the app space.  It would simple act as an app prototyping and 
sketch helper tool.

Huge and incomparable difference!

Randall  

-Original Message-
From: Chipp Walters 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:32 AM
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs and the 
consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a tool to identify Flash 
apps created from C ported to Xcode.

The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code, they have 
to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C libraries have unique 
footprints which can easily be detected. Once detected, it is easy to conclude 
they are in violation of SDK 4.0.

And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple license dot dot 
revision away from being excluded once again. I don't understand why this 
concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If Apple doesn't want you to develop on 
their platforms, then do like Adobe did and give up. 

Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or later 
someone is bound to create another must have software product with a dev 
environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to be run on iPhones and 
ipads.

My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I couldn't 
believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just to have it rejected 
based on arbitrary conditions. At least with game consoles, they can pre-accept 
your idea and the final check is only a QA one. 

Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple can change 
their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment, and kill your company 
plan with an unprecedented dot dot license change limiting you to what 
"original programming language is used." Who ever heard of such draconian 
development terms?

Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky business indeed. 

On May 9, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Josh Mellicker  wrote:

> Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
> Text is text.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

iPad Web App Kickstart

[Michael Kann]

No, not money, just code to download:

http://www.nxfx.com/blog/web-design-articles/web-development/


  
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: iRev Functionality

[Michael Kann]

Much appreciated, as always.

--- On Sun, 5/9/10, J. Landman Gay  wrote:

> From: J. Landman Gay 
> Subject: Re: iRev Functionality
> To: "How to use Revolution" 
> Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 3:26 PM
> Michael Kann wrote:
> > --
> > Thomas McGrath III asked:
> > --
> > Where is there a list of iRev commands available?
> > 
> > I just tried revSpeak in iRev and got a handler not
> found error and 
> > would like to know what else is not available.
> 
> The most complete reference right now is the dictionary.
> Make sure you have Rev's preferences set to show the "class"
> and "platforms" columns so you don't have to look up each
> term. If a term is supported for iRev it will say "server".
> The Rev speech commands are listed there as compatible, but
> I see the opposite in some very early notes released last
> summer. Those old notes say that the only externals
> available for iRev work are revzip, revdb, and revxml.
> 
> > Jacqueline, is the updated change log available
> anywhere?
> > I'm most interested in the differences between
> > 
> > 1. the most up-to-date reference for irev scripts (the
> change log I assume)
> > 
> > 2. the dictionary that comes with 4.0
> > 
> > 3. cgi scripts used with the 3.5 engine
> > 
> 
> When using iRev scripts, the up-to-date reference and the
> dictionary are pretty much the same thing, except that the
> dictionary omits iRev-specific terms that don't apply to
> desktop apps. I have some early release notes but I can't
> recall where I got them; I think they arrived when I got my
> iRev account and downloaded the on-rev app. Those notes list
> some new variables applicable only to iRev scripting, which
> include $_SERVER, $_POST, $_POST_RAW, $_GET, "put new
> header", "put content", includes, and an errormode property
> that determines where script errors are sent. Other than
> that, most native terms are available as per the dictionary
> listing.
> 
> For CGIs, there are a few more limitations. The CGI script
> itself can't load externals (because those can only be
> loaded into a stack) or refer to anything that requires a
> GUI. I.e., a CGI script can't refer to "this card" because
> there aren't any cards, it's just a text script. Mouse
> events, functions that work with objects, etc. aren't
> applicable in a text-only environment. Many of those
> limitations can be overcome by loading a real stack as a
> library when the CGI starts up. In that case, you do have a
> stack running, and stack references, object functions, etc.
> will work. Even so, some things will still fail if they
> aren't relevant to a server environment. For example, there
> is no keyboard or mouse available to the CGI so functions
> like "the mouseloc" or "keydown" will fail.
> 
> -- Jacqueline Landman Gay     
>    |     jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software       
>    |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage
> your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: iRev Functionality

[J. Landman Gay]

Michael Kann wrote:

--
Thomas McGrath III asked:
--
Where is there a list of iRev commands available?

I just tried revSpeak in iRev and got a handler not found error and 

> would like to know what else is not available.

The most complete reference right now is the dictionary. Make sure you 
have Rev's preferences set to show the "class" and "platforms" columns 
so you don't have to look up each term. If a term is supported for iRev 
it will say "server". The Rev speech commands are listed there as 
compatible, but I see the opposite in some very early notes released 
last summer. Those old notes say that the only externals available for 
iRev work are revzip, revdb, and revxml.



Jacqueline, is the updated change log available anywhere?

> I'm most interested in the differences between


1. the most up-to-date reference for irev scripts (the change log I assume)

2. the dictionary that comes with 4.0

3. cgi scripts used with the 3.5 engine



When using iRev scripts, the up-to-date reference and the dictionary are 
pretty much the same thing, except that the dictionary omits 
iRev-specific terms that don't apply to desktop apps. I have some early 
release notes but I can't recall where I got them; I think they arrived 
when I got my iRev account and downloaded the on-rev app. Those notes 
list some new variables applicable only to iRev scripting, which include 
$_SERVER, $_POST, $_POST_RAW, $_GET, "put new header", "put content", 
includes, and an errormode property that determines where script errors 
are sent. Other than that, most native terms are available as per the 
dictionary listing.


For CGIs, there are a few more limitations. The CGI script itself can't 
load externals (because those can only be loaded into a stack) or refer 
to anything that requires a GUI. I.e., a CGI script can't refer to "this 
card" because there aren't any cards, it's just a text script. Mouse 
events, functions that work with objects, etc. aren't applicable in a 
text-only environment. Many of those limitations can be overcome by 
loading a real stack as a library when the CGI starts up. In that case, 
you do have a stack running, and stack references, object functions, 
etc. will work. Even so, some things will still fail if they aren't 
relevant to a server environment. For example, there is no keyboard or 
mouse available to the CGI so functions like "the mouseloc" or "keydown" 
will fail.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Chipp Walters]

Not true. There was much web talk about this on various dev blogs and the 
consensus was Apple would definitely be able to create a tool to identify Flash 
apps created from C ported to Xcode.

The reason is simple. even though Flash (and Rev) generates C code, they have 
to use their own C libraries to work with it. And these C libraries have unique 
footprints which can easily be detected. Once detected, it is easy to conclude 
they are in violation of SDK 4.0.

And even if a better workaround was found, we're only a Apple license dot dot 
revision away from being excluded once again. I don't understand why this 
concept is so hard for folks to grasp? If Apple doesn't want you to develop on 
their platforms, then do like Adobe did and give up. 

Instead, focus on creating killer apps on other platforms. Sooner or later 
someone is bound to create another must have software product with a dev 
environment which is not Xcode. It just won't be able to be run on iPhones and 
ipads.

My advice would be it's risky to do business with Apple. Earlier, I couldn't 
believe you could spend a year writing an iPhone app, just to have it rejected 
based on arbitrary conditions. At least with game consoles, they can pre-accept 
your idea and the final check is only a QA one. 

Now, with the latest 4.0 (not 3.0,2.0,1.0) SDK, it's obvious Apple can change 
their mind, midstream of your million dollar investment, and kill your company 
plan with an unprecedented dot dot license change limiting you to what 
"original programming language is used." Who ever heard of such draconian 
development terms?

Yes, to put trust in Apple as a partner these days is a risky business indeed. 

On May 9, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Josh Mellicker  wrote:

> Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app there, 
> there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written in Xcode. 
> Text is text.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Richmond Mathewson]

 On 09/05/2010 20:55, Mark Wieder wrote:

Richmond-

Sunday, May 9, 2010, 10:46:49 AM, you wrote:


Leaks of what?  Last time I looked computers don't have glands; maybe
I'm getting out of date.

I'm fairly sure my Windows computers have bile glands.



Oh, Gosh, here I am back at my computer after 4 days without; lovely
holiday; and I am already feeling queasy.

All I can say is that I am really rather glad that Sivakatirswami came
up with 'Devawriter' for my software before I put my big, fat foot in it
and gave it some sort of name that would have elicited comments
and remarks of this sort.

Of course; I had all sorts of fairly unprintable names in mind;
and as my all-in-wrestling match to tame the RunRev-crossbreeds-with-Unicode
dragon they became increasingly unprintable.

On the other hand, I prefer 'Glandular' to the poncy Italian chocolate . 
. .  :)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Mark Wieder]

Richmond-

Sunday, May 9, 2010, 10:46:49 AM, you wrote:

> Leaks of what?  Last time I looked computers don't have glands; maybe
> I'm getting out of date.

I'm fairly sure my Windows computers have bile glands.

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 mwie...@ahsoftware.net

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Richmond Mathewson]

 On 09/05/2010 20:25, Neal Campbell wrote:

I suspect that just as Jerry chose Rodeo for his new service, name picking
is done by the people coming up with the design and choose what they like. I
know in the 90's when I was in charge of a global technology call center, I
went to Apple for a "best practice" visit and they had named their meeting
rooms after sushi. You could cynically say "How pretentious" but the
employees smiled every time they mentioned a room so they enjoyed it.

Just look at the Intel chip names, obviously someone loves those "location"
names that none of us find amusing or even memorable!



I think I prefer "location" to "lactation"; maybe it's a side affect of
Steve Jobs' veganism.  Of course it could be something linked
with, say, the thyroid gland; but that doesn't make me feel very
comfy either.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Richmond Mathewson]

 On 09/05/2010 20:18, Josh Mellicker wrote:

Is that "Glandula" as in glandular, or something vaguely
Italian? Because if it is the former they seem to have chosen
an unwise name.


Apple sometimes gives different departments different names or code 
names so they can trace leaks.


Leaks of what?  Last time I looked computers don't have glands; maybe 
I'm getting out of date.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Neal Campbell]

I suspect that just as Jerry chose Rodeo for his new service, name picking
is done by the people coming up with the design and choose what they like. I
know in the 90's when I was in charge of a global technology call center, I
went to Apple for a "best practice" visit and they had named their meeting
rooms after sushi. You could cynically say "How pretentious" but the
employees smiled every time they mentioned a room so they enjoyed it.

Just look at the Intel chip names, obviously someone loves those "location"
names that none of us find amusing or even memorable!

Brs


Neal
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Josh Mellicker]

Is that "Glandula" as in glandular, or something vaguely
Italian? Because if it is the former they seem to have chosen
an unwise name.


Apple sometimes gives different departments different names or code  
names so they can trace leaks.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Josh Mellicker]

On May 8, 2010, at 11:28 PM, "J. Landman Gay"  
 wrote:



Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:


RevMobile before it seems was going generate c# sources?
Strange choice as for me.
Main engine should go to C,
Some parts of REV project also to C
And GUI part of REV project to ObjC - Cocoa.


This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations.  
All work must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.


Of course, if you pasted the C code into Xcode and built your app  
there, there would be no way Apple could tell the code was not written  
in Xcode. Text is text.


I've compared Revtalk and C a little bit and there are some code  
structures that are so similar translation would be easy (if then,  
switch). Chunk expressions are an example of something that would not  
translate, so there would have to be a special set of handlers that  
split strings and returned items, and in Revtalk you'd need to call  
these functions rather than using the stock ones to make the C output  
feasible.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos

[Michael Kann]

Thanks for the info Colin. Back to the drawing board.

Mike

--- On Sun, 5/9/10, Colin Holgate  wrote:

> From: Colin Holgate 
> Subject: Re: Check out Jerry's new videos
> To: "How to use Revolution" 
> Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 11:10 AM
> When you press and drag on an html5
> canvas, it doesn't do what you had in mind, it just causes
> the web page to move. 
> 
> That might be solvable by having your own WebKit based App
> that has the springy setting turned off.
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage
> your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 


  
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Lynn Fredricks]

> My job is, in another, write specifications for contracts, 
> and what I read about (because I could not read directly 
> concerned §) in § 3.3.1 does not seem admissible in France's 
> legal perspective. In France the law is above the contract, 
> perhaps is it different in the USA (?)

The law is above the contract in the USA, but there isn't a magical force to
enforce contract laws in an equitable way. The law is perpetually playing
catch up (if congress even tries at all) with the tech industry.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos

[Colin Holgate]

When you press and drag on an html5 canvas, it doesn't do what you had in mind, 
it just causes the web page to move. 

That might be solvable by having your own WebKit based App that has the springy 
setting turned off. ___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Mark Wieder]

Richmond-

Sunday, May 9, 2010, 5:25:41 AM, you wrote:

> Is that "Glandula" as in glandular, or something vaguely
> Italian? Because if it is the former they seem to have chosen
> an unwise name.

If you follow up and look at the link you'll see in the fourth
sentence that Gianduia is "named after an Italian hazelnut chocolate".
I think it's an overly pretentious attempt to come up with more
spinoffs from the Cocoa name, but there you go. Whether it's a wise
choice of not isn't my call. Maybe their lawyers are gearing up for
another trademark lawsuit.

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 mwie...@ahsoftware.net

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Check out Jerry's new videos

[Michael Kann]

-
Randall Reetz' Rejoinder: 
--
Really, I can edit my web page in the browser just by drawing and dragging?  
Wrong.

Mike's Meticulous Reply: 

Randall, don't give up so easily. Drawing: With the HTML5 Canvas Element and 
the right javascript library it is very doable. Have the user draw on the 
canvas. Collect the imageData from the canvas and send it back to the server 
using AJAX. On the server figure out what the schmo was drawing for you and 
send him back a webpage to fit his design. Dragging: every self-respecting 
javascript library has that.

Any other functionality you might need?

Always willing to help out,
Mike


Earlier Discussion: 


Randall Reetz:

What I have always wanted is a browser that goes way beyond
"view source", allowing instead an "edit mode" that allows
direct manipulation of page elements in vitro.

Your wish is my command:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1843

Or turning on the debug menu in Safari, then right-click on anything  
in the page and 'inspect element'.

It's been a few years since all a browser would do was show you the  
source code.

Ian


  
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: Three Years of Rev (was RE: Check out Jerry's new videos)

[Lynn Fredricks]

Hi Chipp,

> How would you suggest paying for all of this? Just wondering...
> Do you really think the current revenue stream can prop up 
> this luxurious road map?

Cost control is part of the secret sauce that is my...secret sauce. One way
of doing this is through my kind of cost control, but there are other ways.
This is what I would do ;-)

> I personally would rather see RunRev trim their efforts and 
> focus better on technologies which can provide best in class 
> cross platform solutions.

Cross platform and incorporating a popular handheld device sort of go hand
in hand. I agree that cross-platform is where the focus should be. I believe
supporting Android for example, would increase revenue.

> Even if this means cutting back on the number of initiatives. 
> I've never really thought the rev plugin was a good idea, and 
> now with Apple's gunsights focussed directly on Flash's 
> proprietary plugin, it's easy to see why. Of course if it's 
> just 'a compile away' then it's probably no big deal-- but 
> that has not seemed to be the case up to now.

I went through the Roadster nightmare with SuperCard years ago so I was a
bit reluctant at first. A lot of changes have happened since then;
programming for it is easier. I agree, as long as it's a "Player in a
Browser" then the risk is minimal.

> Linux? I suppose targeting a specific platform, or two-- but 
> does it really make any money? Can a small company like RR 
> afford to support and provide free product to a platform 
> which generates (my guess) single digit percentage figures of 
> total revenue?

It comes back to the cross platform message. The engine itself has to be
there in order to provide Mac/Windows to Linux. The additional investment is
on the IDE. A number of open source initiatives fund themselves through
providing premium support contracts. There is an element of risk here
though, I agree.


> I'd try and shore up the Apache Module, and sell it for a decent
> fee-- especially if there's a work flow aspect to it with 
> good documentation. That is where one could raise some money 
> quickly-- IMO.
> 
> But putting it together with a whole Web App framework, is 
> way too much for this crowd and this company. Leave that up 
> to the Rodeo's of the world-- it's a HUGE job. You need an 
> expert DOM expert, Javascript expert, HTML5 expert, CSS 
> expert, cross-browser expert, not to mention a great 
> architect and some serious time on your hands to develop a 
> complete framework.

I agree, but Id probably do this step by step, much as you suggest above.
Treat this as a 1.0 product, and build upward and outward, knowing the
direction you are going.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software
http://www.paradigmasoft.com

Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server 






 
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Lynn Fredricks < 
> lfredri...@proactive-intl.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > - Focus on mobile targets (Android, Netbooks, try to weasel a deal 
> > with MS for Windows Phone/XNA/Xbox, don't depend on Apple, but 
> > reciprocate any love
> > shown)
> > - Explore ways to take advantage of hardware acceleration 
> for graphics 
> > and have a 64 bit strategy
> > - Strongly support 1-2 major Linuxes and make Linux only 
> compilation 
> > free
> > - Rev/PHP like System with a Web Interface builder/translator; 
> > Application Server
> > - Improve back end code so that its easier to generate new platform 
> > sources with the least amount of trouble
> > - Come up with a way to more easily "package" various web 
> APIs and put 
> > that into the Enterprise product
> > - Really good version control for Enterprise
> > - Improve efficiency/performance of component/External usage
> > - Make it easier for third parties to put in various 
> wizards, etc into 
> > the Rev interface without messing it up
> >
> > The challenge with selling development tools is that you make a 
> > terribly complex product that is expensive to support and 
> has a small 
> > potential user base. So finding ways to lower support costs and 
> > increasing the potential user base suggests a few strategies.
> >
> > Runrev has to be profitable to keep developing, and the more "hot"
> > platforms
> > you have, the more dollar signs will appear in the eyes of 
> potential 
> > customers. Android/Tablets/Netbooks/Phones are begging for 
> a good way 
> > to get vertical applications on them.
> >
> > Back end coding has to go through iterative processes 
> though to make 
> > sure it becomes less and less problematic to add new 
> targets. I don't 
> > know what the situation is with the Rev code, but I know 
> its something 
> > we've done really successfully at Paradigma. Id expect Rev 
> to be much, 
> > much more complicated.
> >
> > As this gets better, code translation as you suggest may be 
> a lot less 
> > trouble than it probably is right now to implement, and therefore a 
> > strategy that doesn't require betting the company on

iRev Functionality

[Michael Kann]

--
Thomas McGrath III asked:
--
Where is there a list of iRev commands available?

I just tried revSpeak in iRev and got a handler not found error and would like 
to know what else is not available. 
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay responded:
--
Virtually everything is available, with the added bonus of a few new terms 
listed in the change log.
--
Mike wonders:
--
Jacqueline, is the updated change log available anywhere? I'm most interested 
in the differences between

1. the most up-to-date reference for irev scripts (the change log I assume)

2. the dictionary that comes with 4.0

3. cgi scripts used with the 3.5 engine

I'm not interested in the syntax. You've outlined that wonderfully in your 
tutorials. I am interested in new functionality as it comes online.

Thanks as always.

--
More from Jacqueline:
--

IRev scripts can contain plain lists of commands without any handler 
declarations, or alternately the commands can be enclosed in formal ("on" or 
"command") handler declarations. If your commands are not inside a formal 
handler declaration, then you will get the error message you saw. Additionally, 
the server compiles revTalk from top to bottom. Unlike stack scripts where 
handlers can go anywhere in the message hierarchy, you can't place a handler 
anywhere you like on the page -- it must be declared before any other command 
makes use of it. It's easiest to place most handlers above the html code at the 
top of the page, just to make sure they are processed before any other line of 
script needs them. This isn't necessary though, just make sure handlers occur 
before any other line of script that needs to use them.




  
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos

[Jerry Daniels]

Oops...meant to say:

Apple does NOT care how web pages are made.

Best,

Jerry Daniels

Use tRev's buy link during your free trial to get 20% off:
http://reveditor.com/tag/shouldiswitch

On May 9, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Jerry Daniels  wrote:

> Apple does care how web pages are made. Will never care as long as something 
> like Flash or revPlugin is not used, because they operate locally, on the 
> device. Rodeo's secret sauce is all on the server.   
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos

[Jerry Daniels]

Apple does not restrict your viewing of the web content. It does restrict web 
plugins that it believes will eat up battery and processor.

Rodeo is a tool to help you create web pages that work like apps in an iPad web 
browser. Any browser in the App store can view those pages. No plugin is used. 
The pages are generated by the Rodeo server.

Apple does care how web pages are made. Will never care as long as something 
like Flash or revPlugin is not used, because they operate locally, on the 
device. Rodeo's secret sauce is all on the server.   

Best,

Jerry Daniels

Use tRev's buy link during your free trial to get 20% off:
http://reveditor.com/tag/shouldiswitch

On May 9, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Peter Alcibiades  
wrote:

> 
> Rene, this is the text in question:-
> 
> 3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed
> by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be
> originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the
> iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C
> may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g.,
> Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary
> translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
> 
> It may be difficult linguistically for non-native speakers, but to a native
> speaker this is (mostly) clear and unambiguous.  What it says is, your
> application
> 
> -- must be originally written in the specified languages.  This is perhaps
> not totally precise, but it is going to allow you to sketch out your ideas
> on paper in whatever you want, to do flow charts in whatever you want, but
> it is not going to allow you to code in anything but the languages specified
> and then translate into them.  Things are 'originally written' in, for
> instance, French, when this was the first version of the novel that was
> written.  Translations into English are not originally written in English. 
> It may seem hard to define exactly, but its clear to most people what does
> and does not count as originally written.
> 
> -- in particular, with regard to Javascript, it is not just any sort of
> javascript, it is only allowed to write originally in "Javascript "as
> executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine".   This means, your original
> writing if in JS must be in this particular flavor of it.
> 
> -- It next says that you may not compile and link against the documented
> APIs from anything but C, C++ and Objective-C.  That is perfectly clear and
> unambiguous.  You may not arrive at the code in these languages from any
> method but originally writing in them.  Having got your code, you may
> compile and link if and only if it is written in the approved languages.
> 
> In short, do not write originally in anything but the approved languages,
> and if you do, do not compile and link against the APIs.
> 
> -- It finally says that "Applications that link to Documented APIs through
> an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited". 
> Now, this is a for example, so it is not exhaustive.  But what it is telling
> you is that you cannot use an intermediary translation tool.  You cannot do
> what you are trying to do.  
> 
> What's the bottom line?  You can write your C or C++ using whatever you
> want.  Eclipse or notepad, they do not care.  But you will write C or C++ in
> the editor or IDE of your choice.  You will not write revtalk or anything
> else, and have that translate into C.  
> 
> The sentence is not perfectly clear in one respect, its not clear whether
> compatibility qualifies tool, as well as layer.  It could mean that you may
> not use a compatibility layer or a compatibility tool to link to the APIs,
> or it could be meant more widely, that you may not use a compatibility layer
> or any kind of tool, not restricted to compatibility tools, to link to the
> APIs.  It makes no practical difference either way though.
> 
> Whatever, if you want to comply with the developer contract, this is
> perfectly clear.  It says you need to fire up your brain and start coding
> either in:-
> 
> -- C
> 
> -- C++
> 
> -- Objective C
> 
> -- Javascript as executed by the iPhone OS Webkit engine.
> 
> There is really no doubt about what this means.  As to whether its
> enforceable, the answer is, in the short to medium term, undoubtedly. 
> Because there is an enforcement mechanism, they don't have to let your app
> into the App store, and they don't have to give a reason for refusal.  So
> mere suspicion that you have done it in the wrong language and translated
> it, will get your app barred.  And they are not interested, they simply do
> not care, if they ban some apps incorrectly.  There is nothing you can do
> about it.  They do not even have to tell you what their reason was.
> 
> The only people who will change this will be the courts and the competition
> regulators in the US.  By the time they get around to it, and by the time a

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

 Thank you Peter.
I understand all of that... :-)

Le 9 mai 2010 à 16:13, Peter Alcibiades a écrit :
> 
>  Things are 'originally written' in, for
> instance, French, when this was the first version of the novel that was
> written.  Translations into English are not originally written in English. 
> It may seem hard to define exactly, but its clear to most people what does
> and does not count as originally written.

In literrature there is case of a writer who write in a language et rewrite 
(himself) in another language (Nabokov by example)
> 
> In short, do not write originally in anything but the approved languages,
> and if you do, do not compile and link against the APIs.
> 
> -- It finally says that "Applications that link to Documented APIs through
> an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited". 
> Now, this is a for example, so it is not exhaustive.  But what it is telling
> you is that you cannot use an intermediary translation tool.  You cannot do
> what you are trying to do. 
> 
> What's the bottom line?  You can write your C or C++ using whatever you
> want.  Eclipse or notepad, they do not care.  But you will write C or C++ in
> the editor or IDE of your choice.  You will not write revtalk or anything
> else, and have that translate into C.  
> 
Have you red my last posts (with the explanation of "my method" ;-) ?
> 
> 
> There is really no doubt about what this means.  As to whether its
> enforceable, the answer is, in the short to medium term, undoubtedly. 
> Because there is an enforcement mechanism, they don't have to let your app
> into the App store, and they don't have to give a reason for refusal.  So
> mere suspicion that you have done it in the wrong language and translated
> it, will get your app barred.  And they are not interested, they simply do
> not care, if they ban some apps incorrectly.  There is nothing you can do
> about it.  They do not even have to tell you what their reason was.
> 
> The only people who will change this will be the courts and the competition
> regulators in the US.  By the time they get around to it, and by the time a
> settlement is worked out, if they overturn it, and by the time the
> boundaries of that settlement are fixed, it will be too late for you as an
> iPhone developer.

Yes I think also
> 
> You have to understand that finding some way around the wording does not
> help at all.  Even if you were to find one, which you won't, you will just
> get banned anyway for finding a way around and using it.
> 
> You want to develop for iPhone OS as a business, you now have two and only
> two practical choices.  One, get busy on C or iPhone Java.Two, develop
> webapps as in Rodeo.  The safest is probably flavors of C.  The quickest is
> probably Rodeo.  Save time, and accept it.
> 
It's seems to be wise, indeed, I am interested in Rodeo but is seems 
complicated (!?)
Thank you again
Bon souvenir de Paris
René

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

iPad innovation

[Michael Kann]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/08/apple-ipad-uses-the-most_n_568384.html#s89092

-- might have to paste in browser due to line break




  
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Peter Alcibiades]

Rene, this is the text in question:-

3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed
by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be
originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the
iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C
may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g.,
Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary
translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

It may be difficult linguistically for non-native speakers, but to a native
speaker this is (mostly) clear and unambiguous.  What it says is, your
application

-- must be originally written in the specified languages.  This is perhaps
not totally precise, but it is going to allow you to sketch out your ideas
on paper in whatever you want, to do flow charts in whatever you want, but
it is not going to allow you to code in anything but the languages specified
and then translate into them.  Things are 'originally written' in, for
instance, French, when this was the first version of the novel that was
written.  Translations into English are not originally written in English. 
It may seem hard to define exactly, but its clear to most people what does
and does not count as originally written.

-- in particular, with regard to Javascript, it is not just any sort of
javascript, it is only allowed to write originally in "Javascript "as
executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine".   This means, your original
writing if in JS must be in this particular flavor of it.

-- It next says that you may not compile and link against the documented
APIs from anything but C, C++ and Objective-C.  That is perfectly clear and
unambiguous.  You may not arrive at the code in these languages from any
method but originally writing in them.  Having got your code, you may
compile and link if and only if it is written in the approved languages.

In short, do not write originally in anything but the approved languages,
and if you do, do not compile and link against the APIs.

-- It finally says that "Applications that link to Documented APIs through
an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited". 
Now, this is a for example, so it is not exhaustive.  But what it is telling
you is that you cannot use an intermediary translation tool.  You cannot do
what you are trying to do.  

What's the bottom line?  You can write your C or C++ using whatever you
want.  Eclipse or notepad, they do not care.  But you will write C or C++ in
the editor or IDE of your choice.  You will not write revtalk or anything
else, and have that translate into C.  

The sentence is not perfectly clear in one respect, its not clear whether
compatibility qualifies tool, as well as layer.  It could mean that you may
not use a compatibility layer or a compatibility tool to link to the APIs,
or it could be meant more widely, that you may not use a compatibility layer
or any kind of tool, not restricted to compatibility tools, to link to the
APIs.  It makes no practical difference either way though.

Whatever, if you want to comply with the developer contract, this is
perfectly clear.  It says you need to fire up your brain and start coding
either in:-

-- C

-- C++

-- Objective C

-- Javascript as executed by the iPhone OS Webkit engine.

There is really no doubt about what this means.  As to whether its
enforceable, the answer is, in the short to medium term, undoubtedly. 
Because there is an enforcement mechanism, they don't have to let your app
into the App store, and they don't have to give a reason for refusal.  So
mere suspicion that you have done it in the wrong language and translated
it, will get your app barred.  And they are not interested, they simply do
not care, if they ban some apps incorrectly.  There is nothing you can do
about it.  They do not even have to tell you what their reason was.

The only people who will change this will be the courts and the competition
regulators in the US.  By the time they get around to it, and by the time a
settlement is worked out, if they overturn it, and by the time the
boundaries of that settlement are fixed, it will be too late for you as an
iPhone developer.

You have to understand that finding some way around the wording does not
help at all.  Even if you were to find one, which you won't, you will just
get banned anyway for finding a way around and using it.

You want to develop for iPhone OS as a business, you now have two and only
two practical choices.  One, get busy on C or iPhone Java.Two, develop
webapps as in Rodeo.  The safest is probably flavors of C.  The quickest is
probably Rodeo.  Save time, and accept it.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Check-out-Jerry-s-new-videos-tp2135722p2164443.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Ian Wood wrote:

>> 3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
>> translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
> 
> Again - that is the OLD version of 3.3.1. The new one is much more 
> restrictive.


No, that's from the new one, he just cut off all the other parts of 3.3.1. It's 
that bit of 3.3.1 that affects tools like Rev the most, because without that 
part it might be feasible to have an Objective-C based engine, and a 
non-Objective-C scripting language to make it do what you want it to do.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

It is a part of § 3.3.1 of 4.0... I think... Colin ?
And if it is, this is the problematic line... I think...

Le 9 mai 2010 à 15:26, Ian Wood a écrit :

> 
> On 9 May 2010, at 14:05, René Micout wrote:
> 
>> 3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
>> translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
> 
> Again - that is the OLD version of 3.3.1. The new one is much more 
> restrictive.
> 
> Ian
> 
> P.S. 
> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Ian Wood]

On 9 May 2010, at 14:05, René Micout wrote:

3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an  
intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are  
prohibited.


Again - that is the OLD version of 3.3.1. The new one is much more  
restrictive.


Ian

P.S. 
http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: rev-web, revbrowser, on-rev, Linux, help!

[Michael Kann]

Peter, if you want to put up a web page on the on-rev server to give it a try 
I'd be happy to give you a folder to fool around with. I'm using about a 
millionth of my alotted space at the moment.

Part of what Peter Alcibiades wrote:

So basically it goes like this, doesn't it?

We want to write on-rev material, we can, we use a text editor, then we
load it onto the Rev run on-rev server, and it works fine in Linux or
anything else, in any web browser.

---
-- Make sure you save the file as "text" before uploading.
-- I use Filezilla to upload my files. The built-in cPanel screwed up the line 
endings for me.
---

Presumably there's a handbook with a guide for how to do this someplace.
---
-- The handbook is named Sarah.
---

We don't have the on-rev desktop client which might make life easer, but we can 
do it. 
---
-- Would probably make life more difficult.
---

What we need for this is a subscription to the on-Rev hosting service.  I'm
not thinking of doing this at the moment, so this not going to be available.
---
-- If you do want to get a subscription you might be able to get one at half 
price through Lynn Fredericks' company. I don't know if that offer is still in 
effect. You might have to buy something to get the discount.
---

If Rev eventually releases the server package, then it would be
in principle possible to do this on any server where it was loaded, but we
are not there yet.

---
** MOST IMPORTANT **

By installing the RunRev 3.5 engine on any Apache server you can get just about 
the same functionality as you would get on the on-rev server. Using the engine 
instead of the irev files is a little less convenient, but the end result will 
be the same. One really handy aspect of the on-rev server is that you can use 
the shell commands combined with the irev files. For example, you can use 
imageMagick to dick around with your images before you  send them out. So if 
you want to use RunRev in place of PHP you can do it on any Apache server that 
will let you install the engine. (Many people are doing that). 
---
Hope that helps a little,

Mike


  
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

But perhaps the ideal tool (RunRevMobile?) as I described is not technically 
feasible and it is another problem ... 

Le 9 mai 2010 à 15:05, René Micout a écrit :

> 3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
> translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
> • It is the node of the problem : in a precedent post I talk about a system 
> witch allow to write in RevTalk the code of an "application". This code is 
> translated into Objective-C code. This Objective-C code is written (or 
> copy-paste or if it not ethical acceptable enter char to char with my 
> fingers...) into xCode and compile with it to make with interface (Interface 
> Builder construction) the "application". This "application" have no link with 
> APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or other tool.
> Am I clear ? Because some person (in this list) say to me : it is right, 
> other persons say to me : it is a violation of the SDK 4.0.
> If I can write all this in French, the things will be facter and easier for 
> me ... but not for you :-)
> 
> Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> What mean "translations" ? What mean "originally" ?
>> 
>> Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
>> (ask "What is your name" for example), you've gone against the license 
>> agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
>> approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens 
>> at runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

3.3.1 ... Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary 
translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.
• It is the node of the problem : in a precedent post I talk about a system 
witch allow to write in RevTalk the code of an "application". This code is 
translated into Objective-C code. This Objective-C code is written (or 
copy-paste or if it not ethical acceptable enter char to char with my 
fingers...) into xCode and compile with it to make with interface (Interface 
Builder construction) the "application". This "application" have no link with 
APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or other tool.
Am I clear ? Because some person (in this list) say to me : it is right, other 
persons say to me : it is a violation of the SDK 4.0.
If I can write all this in French, the things will be facter and easier for me 
... but not for you :-)

Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :

> 
> On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
> 
>> 
>> What mean "translations" ? What mean "originally" ?
> 
> Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
> (ask "What is your name" for example), you've gone against the license 
> agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
> approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens at 
> runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 8:45 AM, René Micout wrote:

> Thank you ! I have not signed the agreement...

I have, that's why I gave you a link to a page, rather than simply pasting the 
text here!



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

Thank you ! I have not signed the agreement...

Le 9 mai 2010 à 14:32, Colin Holgate a écrit :

> The funny thing is that if you have signed the agreement, you can't talk 
> about it! Only people who didn't sign can I suppose.
> 
> Here is an example page that talks about one of the parts of the agreement, 
> in English:
> 
> http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler
> 
> and translated to French:
> 
> http://bit.ly/aQcBY6
> 
> 
> One very funny thing about the translation, I tried translating the text from 
> French back to English, and there is a vital mistake that it makes. The last 
> word in the 3.3.1 text is "prohibited", and when translated from English to 
> French and back again, it becomes "allowed"! If you read the French version, 
> and you think that it is saying that translation layers are allowed, then 
> that's a problem in the Google translation.
> 
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 8:21 AM, René Micout wrote:

> Is this correct ? iPhone SDK license 4.0 version ? :
> 3.3.1 Applications may only use Published APIs in the manner prescribed by 
> Apple and must not use or call any unpublished or private APIs.

That's the old agreement, before the changes.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

The funny thing is that if you have signed the agreement, you can't talk about 
it! Only people who didn't sign can I suppose.

Here is an example page that talks about one of the parts of the agreement, in 
English:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

and translated to French:

http://bit.ly/aQcBY6


One very funny thing about the translation, I tried translating the text from 
French back to English, and there is a vital mistake that it makes. The last 
word in the 3.3.1 text is "prohibited", and when translated from English to 
French and back again, it becomes "allowed"! If you read the French version, 
and you think that it is saying that translation layers are allowed, then 
that's a problem in the Google translation.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Richmond Mathewson]

 On 08/05/2010 07:32, Richard Gaskin wrote:


Apple developing Flash alternative named Gianduia

 



--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
 revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution



Is that "Glandula" as in glandular, or something vaguely
Italian? Because if it is the former they seem to have chosen
an unwise name.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

Is this correct ? iPhone SDK license 4.0 version ? :
3.3.1   Applications may only use Published APIs in the manner prescribed by 
Apple and must not use or call any unpublished or private APIs.
3.3.2   An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code 
by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in 
architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted 
code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is 
interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built- in interpreter(s).
3.3.3   Without Apple’s prior written approval, an Application may not provide, 
unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution 
mechanisms other than the App Store.
3.3.4   An Application may write data on a device only to the Application's 
designated container area, except as otherwise specified by Apple.

Le 9 mai 2010 à 14:09, René Micout a écrit :

> Have you the exact terms of the license? I could not read the license 
> agreement to iPhone SDK 4.0 as is usually the case when opening an 
> application and I found nothing on the Apple site. I would like, to 
> understand what it is, consider the exact terms of this license and if 
> possible in French. Where can I get this document?
> Thank you
> Rene
> 
> Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> What mean "translations" ? What mean "originally" ?
>> 
>> Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
>> (ask "What is your name" for example), you've gone against the license 
>> agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
>> approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens 
>> at runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> use-revolution mailing list
>> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
>> preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

Have you the exact terms of the license? I could not read the license agreement 
to iPhone SDK 4.0 as is usually the case when opening an application and I 
found nothing on the Apple site. I would like, to understand what it is, 
consider the exact terms of this license and if possible in French. Where can I 
get this document?
Thank you
Rene

Le 9 mai 2010 à 13:56, Colin Holgate a écrit :

> 
> On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:
> 
>> 
>> What mean "translations" ? What mean "originally" ?
> 
> Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
> (ask "What is your name" for example), you've gone against the license 
> agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
> approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens at 
> runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Colin Holgate]

On May 9, 2010, at 4:28 AM, René Micout wrote:

> 
> What mean "translations" ? What mean "originally" ?

Literally, if you write a single line of your Rev stack using a 'Talk syntax 
(ask "What is your name" for example), you've gone against the license 
agreement, because it takes a translation layer to convert that into Apple's 
approved way of working. It doesn't matter whether the translation happens at 
runtime, or is done by the compiler, it's still not allowed.



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: [OT] Apple developing Flash alternative

[Kay C Lan]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Chipp Walters  wrote:

> Interesting. Very interesting.
>
> Richard, how long do you suppose until Apple bans web apps for the
> iPhone/iPad AppStore unless they are only made with their new tool?
>
>
> Probably shortly after they make it illegal to lend your MacBook to your
mother/brother etc. Oh wait, he's already done that:

5. NO RENTAL/COMMERCIAL HOSTING. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide
commercial hosting services with the Software.

So maybe shortly after they make it impossible for you to sell your iMac on
eBay. Oh wait, he's already done that:

13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different
Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the
Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The
initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this
EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no
copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software
(including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any
upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity).
The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior
to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the
EULA terms.

Note that if you were to sell your iMac on eBay and you had ANY back-up
copies of your hard drive you'd be in direct breach of this clause.

Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, I got the wrong EULA out, this is the Bill
Gates EULA but I'm sure the Steve Jobs one says the same thing.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx

Interesting what the fine print says.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[Peter Alcibiades]

Rene, it is really quite simple what is happening.

Apple has an App Store.  As part of the license for the OS that runs on the
device, you are allowed to install apps only from that App store.  They then
say that only Apps written in certain ways will be allowed into the App
store.

They can set whatever conditions they want, on both of these topics, subject
to the conditions on contract law in general in a given jurisdiction.  Any
conditions which are deemed by the courts to be contractually enforceable
can be set both on whether you can install apps from other places than the
app store, and whether you can write apps in other languages than the ones
specified. In addition, they do not have to list anything they do not feel
like listing in their App store.  This is just the way the law is in the US.

In addition to the contractual restrictions which you are deemed to enter
into, if an end user by accepting the license terms on first use, or if a
developer by entering into the development agreement, there is another
underlying issue.  That is that it is well established in US law that to
load a program, any program, is to make a copy of it.  When you do that, you
require permission from the copyright holder, who may place conditions on
that permission.  Now, there are exemptions from this, if you have purchased
a copy, and it is a program, you then may make such copies as are essential
to use it.  But while this may get you past modifications for your own use,
the exemptions do not allow you to modify and then pass on.  So you can do
it for yourself, you cannot do it as a business.

There is little point arguing or puzzling over the legal aspects of this. 
They probably can, absent decisive action on competition grounds, specify
both whether you may jailbreak the devices, and what languages you use to
develop for them, so they probably do have the legal power to enforce the
lockdown.  And anyway, jailbreaking is sort of academic.  its not going to
happen on any scale big enough to create an interesting market.

You notice how similar the case is to the different issue of whether you may
buy a retail copy of OSX and install it on a white box.  The underlying
issue is whether a company can specify things about how their product can be
used, after they have sold it, and restrict use on purely contractual rather
than technical grounds.  It is a can of worms, especially in all the
different EC jurisdictions, but in the short term, and certainly in the US,
the argument is basically over - for all practical financial purposes.

I would stop worrying about the legalese, the cans and can'ts.  They almost
certainly can, at least in the short term.  Rodeo is a practical answer to a
contractual problem that you're not going to get any other solution to, in
time for it to make much financial difference to you.

Peter
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Check-out-Jerry-s-new-videos-tp2135722p2164329.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: rev-web, revbrowser, on-rev, Linux, help!

[Sarah Reichelt]

> So basically it goes like this, doesn't it?
>
> We want to write on-rev material, we can, we use a text editor, then we
> load it onto the Rev run on-rev server, and it works fine in Linux or
> anything else, in any web browser.  Presumably there's a handbook with a
> guide for how to do this someplace.  We don't have the on-rev desktop
> client which might make life easer, but we can do it.

Yes.


> What we need for this is a subscription to the on-Rev hosting service.  I'm
> not thinking of doing this at the moment, so this not going to be
> available.  If Rev eventually releases the server package, then it would be
> in principle possible to do this on any server where it was loaded, but we
> are not there yet.

Correct - the revServer is supposed to be available for installation
on other servers sometime this year, I believe.


> RevBrowser would, if we had it, display ordinary web pages hosted anyplace
> in a stack.  We can't do this because it does not exist for Linux.

Yes.


> The browser plugins, if we had them, but we don't, would basically let us
> run stacks compiled for this purpose in a browser window.  They could be
> hosted anyplace, not just the Rev server.  We don't have this plugin for
> Linux, so we can't do it.
>
> But we can compile such stacks, and people running Windows and OSX will be
> able to run them, as long as they install the browser plug in.   It doesn't
> really appeal to me, to write apps that my own OS will not run, but I do
> understand that it is possible.

Yes, although it is browser-specific. I can't get it to work in Chrome
on my Mac, although it works fine in Safari.


> Then there is Rodeo.  If we could get Rodeo, it would let us write pages in
> a special client, is that right?  And then we could compile them to run in
> any Web browser and host them on any server?  But right now we cannot get
> that either, because it is only for iPhone OS.

The idea with Rodeo is to give people an easier way to create web
apps, targeted at the iPad.

Cheers,
Sarah
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Accessing data from HID compliant USB device

[David Glasgow]

On 8 May 2010, at 2:38 pm, Sarah Reichelt wrote:

> Subject: Re: Accessing data from HID compliant USB device
> Reply-To: How to use Revolution 
> 
> 
>> This one has been churning around in my head for ages, and I finally bought 
>> a couple of joysticks to experiment with.
>> 
>> I want to build a standalone that responds to joystick input.  Nothing 
>> requiring huge amounts of data or processing, just detection of joystick 
>> position -> onscreen response scaling or moving an image.
>> 
>> I can understand the basic principles of HID, but can't get to grips with 
>> where the data goes in either Mac or Windows, and what would be involved in 
>> capturing it in Rev.  I have found some developer articles which address 
>> this, but they relate to other languages (VB & RB, I think).
> 
> 
> Does the joystick produce keyDown/Up or rawKeyDown/Up messages? If so,
> you could map out the numbers that each motion triggers and have your
> app react accordingly.
> There is a utility on my web site that detects keystrokes and displays
> the various codes for them.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Sarah

Thanks Sarah,

I wrote a wee stack to look at keystrokes (not as nice as yours), but it seems 
that HID compliant devices work in a much more complex way than simply 
generating characters.  Except of course the keyboard/mouse family, which do 
nothing but generate characters.  I even bought a repro-retro amiga joystick in 
the hope that it worked the old fashioned way, but it doesn't.  I really want 
the mechanical element of pushing and pulling to be present, otherwise I would 
use a mouse or a keyboard.   

There are utilities out there which enable HID devices to be configured to 
generate keystrokes, so they can be used by folks with a disability to use 
whatever software they need to use, rather than the intended games.  However, 
that would mean running a third party utility then running my stack.  Not a 
nice option.

There are some assistive devices that seem to generate keystrokes, but they are 
shockingly expensive. Makes you realise there is a real disability tax when it 
comes to using computers. I also had expected a few Revvers to have written 
standalone games that use joysticks, but maybe that domain is restricted to the 
die-hard X-planers and shoot em ups.

David Glasgow
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

rev-web, revbrowser, on-rev, Linux, help!

[Peter Alcibiades]

Sarah, your new demo applets all seem to work, and very nice too, I was 
thinking of some in the past that required the plugin to be installed in 
the browser, and of course there wasn't one for Linux.

So basically it goes like this, doesn't it?

We want to write on-rev material, we can, we use a text editor, then we 
load it onto the Rev run on-rev server, and it works fine in Linux or 
anything else, in any web browser.  Presumably there's a handbook with a 
guide for how to do this someplace.  We don't have the on-rev desktop 
client which might make life easer, but we can do it.  

What we need for this is a subscription to the on-Rev hosting service.  I'm 
not thinking of doing this at the moment, so this not going to be 
available.  If Rev eventually releases the server package, then it would be 
in principle possible to do this on any server where it was loaded, but we 
are not there yet.

RevBrowser would, if we had it, display ordinary web pages hosted anyplace 
in a stack.  We can't do this because it does not exist for Linux.

The browser plugins, if we had them, but we don't, would basically let us 
run stacks compiled for this purpose in a browser window.  They could be 
hosted anyplace, not just the Rev server.  We don't have this plugin for 
Linux, so we can't do it.  

But we can compile such stacks, and people running Windows and OSX will be 
able to run them, as long as they install the browser plug in.   It doesn't 
really appeal to me, to write apps that my own OS will not run, but I do 
understand that it is possible.

Then there is Rodeo.  If we could get Rodeo, it would let us write pages in 
a special client, is that right?  And then we could compile them to run in 
any Web browser and host them on any server?  But right now we cannot get 
that either, because it is only for iPhone OS.  

Its a bit confusing, I hope this is right.

Its like, you are on holiday, you go for a long invigorating swim, and come 
back hungry to the breakfast buffet, only to realize that the only thing on 
it you are allowed to eat is some low fat cottage cheese, and maybe one cup 
of unsweetened black coffee.  And the cottage cheese is, well, not exactly 
fresh

Peter
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: Check out Jerry's new videos -- REV to ObjC -> iPhone

[René Micout]

Le 9 mai 2010 à 08:28, J. Landman Gay a écrit :

> This is forbidden by the new license. There can be no translations. All work 
> must be created originally by Apple-specified tools.

This is outside my powers of comprehension... Both points of view technical (if 
it is possible...), ethical and juridical (legal ?), I don't understand (I 
can't understand ?)... Is this a cultural problem ? Is this a linguistic 
problem ;-) ?
What mean "translations" ? What mean "originally" ?
I mentioned this in another post and some have understood (and approved) my 
point of view...
The above argument is invariably advanced, but is it an Apple's argument ?
My job is, in another, write specifications for contracts, and what I read 
about (because I could not read directly concerned §) in § 3.3.1 does not seem 
admissible in France's legal perspective. In France the law is above the 
contract, perhaps is it different in the USA (?).
The debate remains open on the subject( I apologize to those who are not 
interested in the subject) keeps coming back (is it a manifestation of "eternal 
return" dear to Nietzsche?)...
René___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution