Re: Problem with writing a patch stack
Thanks for the helpful replies. I this instance, Kevin's solution was the best, simply deleting the old objects and replacing them with the new and improved replacements. Thanks again! Andy Bailey National Weather Service Rapid City From: Kevin Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Problem with writing a patch stack Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:16:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 16/9/00 8:59 am, Andy Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My home stack is licensed, so I don't see the problem. Also, does this mean that others who just have bigearl.mc, mc, and mctools.mc can't use the patch because of the script limit? If this is indeed the case, how does one circumvent this in order to produce patches? Certainly I'm not the only one who needs the ability to upgrade through a patch.?. You have to open inside the development environment with a licensed Home stack to set a script longer than 10 lines long. This is the restriction placed on unlicensed stacks. To perform a patch, replace the object by deleting the old one, then using "copy from...to" instead of trying to set the script. Regards, Kevin Kevin Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.runrev.com/ Runtime Revolution Limited (formerly Cross Worlds Computing). Tel: +44 (0)131 672 2909. Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list.
Re: Problem with writing a patch stack
on 9/16/00 12:59 AM, Andy Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying to write a patch to an existing application. and on 9/17/2000 5:10 AM, Geoff Canyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested: Two other possible solutions, which may or may not violate your license, would be: 1. Instead of trying to copy the new stuff into the old stack, copy the user-customized stuff out of the old stack into the new stack. This doesn't really qualify as a "patch" in my book, but depending on your goals might do the trick. This should work. I think. There was a situation some time back that I had trouble with pasting an object created in a full version using an unlicensed one... 2. Edit the old stack as a pure text object. Obviously this is tricky, not recommended, perhaps not possible at all, possibly a violation of the license agreement, and in general Not A Good Idea. But it would certainly not produce the script limits problem your current method does. gc But this will not work for two reasons. First of all, the stack is binary, not text. Editing as text means also saving as text, thus destroying the stack. Even if your stack has a .txt ending, it is still written as a binfile. I tried opening a stack I had so edited. Kablooey. And even so, there are some things that should not be done wrg the license agreement. If changes in the stack's script need to be done so that the scriptlimits are not violated. And there *are* ways to legally handle scripting with the unlicensed version so that you are doing everything you want to do. I know. I have been doing it for some time. I never violate the scriptlimits, yet I can do a great deal. Basically it involves placing code in non-script places, as custom properties, and running them with do statements. There are also other techniques. If you want to know more, start a new thread and ask. One other suggestion. Create the stack with other stacks as plugins that your main stack accesses. You can upgrade the plug-in. Raymond Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list.
Re: Problem with writing a patch stack
One other thought about patching stacks... Remember that MC's stackfile format changed at certain version releases. That may have an effect on your success, depending on the version of the engine that runs thing you're patching, and what kinds of objects are included in or affected by the patch. Phil "Raymond E. Griffith" wrote: on 9/16/00 12:59 AM, Andy Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying to write a patch to an existing application. and on 9/17/2000 5:10 AM, Geoff Canyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested: Two other possible solutions, which may or may not violate your license, would be: 1. Instead of trying to copy the new stuff into the old stack, copy the user-customized stuff out of the old stack into the new stack. This doesn't really qualify as a "patch" in my book, but depending on your goals might do the trick. This should work. I think. There was a situation some time back that I had trouble with pasting an object created in a full version using an unlicensed one... 2. Edit the old stack as a pure text object. Obviously this is tricky, not recommended, perhaps not possible at all, possibly a violation of the license agreement, and in general Not A Good Idea. But it would certainly not produce the script limits problem your current method does. gc But this will not work for two reasons. First of all, the stack is binary, not text. Editing as text means also saving as text, thus destroying the stack. Even if your stack has a .txt ending, it is still written as a binfile. I tried opening a stack I had so edited. Kablooey. And even so, there are some things that should not be done wrg the license agreement. If changes in the stack's script need to be done so that the scriptlimits are not violated. And there *are* ways to legally handle scripting with the unlicensed version so that you are doing everything you want to do. I know. I have been doing it for some time. I never violate the scriptlimits, yet I can do a great deal. Basically it involves placing code in non-script places, as custom properties, and running them with do statements. There are also other techniques. If you want to know more, start a new thread and ask. One other suggestion. Create the stack with other stacks as plugins that your main stack accesses. You can upgrade the plug-in. Raymond Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list. -- Phil Davis --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] days: (503) 417-7930 eves: (503) 557-5656 --- Facilitator Essentials of eBusiness Computing Information Technology Institute http://www.iti.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list.
Re: Problem with writing a patch stack
Sounds like you might be opening the stack to patch the environment? You need to open the patch stack from within the environment, as if he licenced home stack is not the first thing to open the script limits are set to the Starter kit. This may not be the problem, but if it is have a look at the previous thread "Avoiding home..." From: "Andy Bailey" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:59:04 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Problem with writing a patch stack I am trying to write a patch to an existing application. The existing application required extensive customization by the end user (several hours). Now I want to update a few of the longer scripts using a patch, so that the users don't need to go through the excruciating setup again. I have written a stack which opens up the stack to be edited, and tries to set the script of one of the bg btns with the line: set the script of bg btn "send taf" of cd "taftemplate" of stack "bigearl" to the send of stack "Bigearl_patch_9.7.2000" When I open and run this script from stack Bigearl_patch_9.7.2000.mc opened from within metacard it works flawlessly. When I run the script from the command line (HPUNIX 10.20) I get the following errors: Object: license limit exceeded Chunk: can't set property Object: can't set object property set: can't set property My home stack is licensed, so I don't see the problem. Also, does this mean that others who just have bigearl.mc, mc, and mctools.mc can't use the patch because of the script limit? If this is indeed the case, how does one circumvent this in order to produce patches? Certainly I'm not the only one who needs the ability to upgrade through a patch.?. Any help appreciated. Andy Bailey National Weather Service Rapid City, SD Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list.
Re: Problem with writing a patch stack
On 16/9/00 8:59 am, Andy Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My home stack is licensed, so I don't see the problem. Also, does this mean that others who just have bigearl.mc, mc, and mctools.mc can't use the patch because of the script limit? If this is indeed the case, how does one circumvent this in order to produce patches? Certainly I'm not the only one who needs the ability to upgrade through a patch.?. You have to open inside the development environment with a licensed Home stack to set a script longer than 10 lines long. This is the restriction placed on unlicensed stacks. To perform a patch, replace the object by deleting the old one, then using "copy from...to" instead of trying to set the script. Regards, Kevin Kevin Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.runrev.com/ Runtime Revolution Limited (formerly Cross Worlds Computing). Tel: +44 (0)131 672 2909. Fax: +44 (0)1639 830 707. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list.
Re: Problem with writing a patch stack
on 9/16/00 12:59 AM, Andy Bailey at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am trying to write a patch to an existing application. Two other possible solutions, which may or may not violate your license, would be: 1. Instead of trying to copy the new stuff into the old stack, copy the user-customized stuff out of the old stack into the new stack. This doesn't really qualify as a "patch" in my book, but depending on your goals might do the trick. 2. Edit the old stack as a pure text object. Obviously this is tricky, not recommended, perhaps not possible at all, possibly a violation of the license agreement, and in general Not A Good Idea. But it would certainly not produce the script limits problem your current method does. gc Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard%40lists.best.com/ Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm Please send bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not this list.
