Hi Wilhelm,
On 3/30/11 12:52 PM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
Apparently the - somehow privileged - information received from RunRev
was not comprehensive enough to let Richard and Klaus create a new
standalone builder at once. Richard needed several contacts with more
than one person and
This is the point, it seemed to have had zero priority for anyone on
this list!
Actually, some of us don't like to ask for things when we know that
people are donating their time. We simply silently wait for things.
I remember having some sort of frustration with the whole standalone
issue
On 3/31/11 9:10 AM, Shari wrote:
This is the point, it seemed to have had zero priority for anyone on
this list!
Actually, some of us don't like to ask for things when we know that
people are donating their time. We simply silently wait for things.
Hopefully we can all feel comfortable
On 3/31/11 11:10 AM, Shari wrote:
I remember having some sort of frustration with the whole standalone
issue which may be why I stayed at MC/Rev 4.0 and did not move forward.
I don't recall if I had to build with the engine from 3.5 or if 4.0 was
okay. I just know that the whole thing was such
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Blame me for that, not RunRev.
I wasn't intending to blame you or any other member of this list - and I
indeed assess it as honorable that you try to find reasons why this
situation has developed as it is now and thus defend RunRev.
MC is an
Thanks for your reply. I think we're pretty much in agreement on the
things you covered, so let me just address this one area to see if I can
provide a little clarification:
On 3/31/11 10:12 AM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
Of course, I fully agree. We do our own maintenance and I have
contributed
Jacque,
As far as I know, you're the only one who couldn't make it work. I
suspect for your stacks you only need to deal with password
protection and embedded MC resources. Also, possibly, you may be
having trouble if you haven't set the HCAddressing property to
false, if your stacks are
On 3/31/11 2:00 PM, Shari wrote:
I no longer embed those stacks either, and my two newer (in the works)
projects don't use Ask/Answer at all. I created my own versions and call
them up differently. But that doesn't help the existing projects.
The easiest way to proceed would be to use one of
One addendum to what Richard delineated about the transition from
Metacard to Revolution after Kevin bought the Metacard engine from Scott
Raney:
The agreement between Scott Raney and Kevin and its details is one
matter, the commitment made by Kevin to members of the Metacard user
group is
Thank you, Jacque, for clarifying the changes for mobile, web, etc.
They are not on my agenda in the near future so you've put my mind
much at ease for moving into an updated version.
I've often read folks preferring the Rev standalone builder. Maybe
with this new project I'll be able to
On 3/31/11 4:03 PM, Shari wrote:
REALLY prefer the Control Browser in MC enough to
forego some of the finer features of Rev like the ability to update
multiple objects with one click (like lock/unlock location etc.)
You can do that in LiveCode too. Actually, the only thing I haven't
found in
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, J. Landman Gay wrote
On 3/31/11 12:12 PM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
Didn't you just state that the build process has been moved into the
engine, so - again - why maintain the protection of the Rev standalone
builder?
The actual building is done in the engine, but
Hallo Wilhelm,
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Richard Gaskin wrote:
In keeping with RunRev's commitment to the MC IDE, Oliver Kenyon provided
the necessary info to allow us to use the new engine-based standalone
building process in v4.0 and later.
I checked my mails to the Metacard list and found
Richard wrote:
On 3/29/11 11:24 AM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
Could you possibly point out where we could find this necessary info
from Oliver Canyon, if it was available it surely escaped me?.
This and
the difficulties of Klaus - there are other reasons as I
understand and
deplore on the
On 3/30/11 12:52 PM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
Apparently the - somehow privileged - information received from RunRev
was not comprehensive enough to let Richard and Klaus create a new
standalone builder at once. Richard needed several contacts with more
than one person and additionally trial and
Monte, I'll risk redundancy because your efforts warrant the recognition:
thanks again for the help you provided during the last major change to MC's
SB. Many of us have contributed code to MC, but your contributions involved
bit-level tedium that a lesser man would not have attempted. :)
Shortly after this Monte Goulding was assigned to repair the standalone
builder, which he did with great success - maybe using some of my
recommendations (I do not know) or along his own lines - obvious to his
analytical and practical mind.
OK, I know what you are talking about. Richard
On 3/30/11 4:15 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
My recommendation to anybody working on the MC SB would be to create code that
extracted the SB and SB settings from LiveCode and any supporting handlers and
insert it into the MC IDE. Obviously there's going to continue to be regular
development of
On 3/30/11 6:15 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
As for the protection of the standalone builder I assume RunRev
believe it's critical to protect their investment and therefore my
investment in my business. As a result when I considered some
development I was considering for the GLX framework and I
I am somewhat late in answering the poll and will post it both to the
Yahoo-MC list and the Runrev Metacard list.
Ken Ray schrieb:
I'd like to take an informal poll to get an idea of how many people are
using the MC IDE, and to what extent. So if you could just reply to this
email with your
On 3/29/11 8:40 AM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
1) Do you build standalones with the MC IDE at all (either because you're
using an older version of MC or because you made your own standalone
builder)?
If the necessity arises of course I have to use an appropriate version
of the MC IDE.
I would very
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Richard Gaskin wrote:
In keeping with RunRev's commitment to the MC IDE, Oliver Kenyon
provided the necessary info to allow us to use the new engine-based
standalone building process in v4.0 and later.
I checked my mails to the Metacard list and found that I had sent 6
On 3/29/11 11:24 AM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote:
Could you possibly point out where we could find this necessary info
from Oliver Canyon, if it was available it surely escaped me?. This and
the difficulties of Klaus - there are other reasons as I understand and
deplore on the side of Klaus - led me to
In all fairness to RunRev, it's not an easy change. And I would even go
so far as to say it was a useful change, actually necessary as far as
RevWeb is concerned and also UAC, and also helpful for both RunRev's
license protection and for the MC IDE, since now the engine does all the
Many years ago we had opted to not use the Yahoo discussion list, and
use the existing MC list hosted at runrev instead because it had more
members. I'm post my reply here for that reason, and going forward if
we keep using only one list for the discussion we can maximize
recipients without
On 27 Mar 2011, at 23:25, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 3/27/11 1:51 PM, Björnke von Gierke wrote:
As far as Standalones go, I find the LC approach pretty sweet, with
the caveat of those horrible IDE properties and the need to scrub
them whenever a standalone is built.
The SB removes them,
26 matches
Mail list logo
