In my case it isn't a splash stack this time, it's self-contained. But
that pane is always disabled for mobile apps, regardless of the
structure of the mainstack.
On 4/19/19 12:35 AM, prothero--- via use-livecode wrote:
I’ll be interested in hearing the answer to this. I had assumed that the s
I’ll be interested in hearing the answer to this. I had assumed that the setup
would be a splash stack that loaded the other app stacks, which were in the
resources folder. True?
Bill
William Prothero
http://es.earthednet.org
> On Apr 18, 2019, at 9:25 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
> w
J. Landman Gay jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> It's not actually a regression, it's always been that way. But it's
> too piddly to bother the team with right now, and there's a
> workaround. Maybe
It's curious that the entire Stacks pane is disabled when either mobile
platform is selected.
That
It's not actually a regression, it's always been that way. But it's too
piddly to bother the team with right now, and there's a workaround. Maybe
I'll ask why it works that way when I see them at the conference.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://w
J. Landman Gay wrote:
> ...encrypted scripts don't matter in the app stores. So I'm still
> wondering what the reason is for disabling it in the SB.
The key question is whether the disabling was intentional.
If it's a regression while making other changes it all makes sense.
Without a bug repo
Apparently my theory of why we can't do it in the standalone builder was
wrong, and encrypted scripts don't matter in the app stores. So I'm
still wondering what the reason is for disabling it in the SB.
I knew how to set a password on a stack, but if you do that then you
have to enter the pas
I'm sure you meant the source code is encrypted. The stack itself is never
encrypted.
Bob S
> On Apr 18, 2019, at 09:30 , JJS via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> If you use this sentence in the message box (which i got from another fine
> member here) the stack is encrypted, and when turned into
If you use this sentence in the message box (which i got from another
fine member here) the stack is encrypted, and when turned into an APK is
well accepted by Google Play Store:
*set*thepasswordofstack"beststackever"to"mostdifficultpasswordofalltimes"
Op 18-4-2019 om 02:33 schreef Richard Ga
J. Landman Gay wrote:
> Finally got to this. The password is saved in the standalone custom
> property set, but when testing on a trial standalone it isn't actually
> being used. So the answer is "no, you can't set a password on a mobile
> app via the standalone builder."
>
> After thinking about
On 4/15/19 3:17 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
It may be that the password isn't being set, or it may be a UI bug in
which the password is set but just isn't being displayed.
You can determine which is the case with a quick test build that does
something like:
answer line 10
J. Landman Gay wrote:
> I take that back. If I turn Android builds back on, close Standalone
> Settings, and re-open it, the password is gone. So, we can't protect
> Android mainstacks?
>
> Android apps can be distributed through private web sites, and without
> any encryption they would be easie
I take that back. If I turn Android builds back on, close Standalone
Settings, and re-open it, the password is gone. So, we can't protect
Android mainstacks?
Android apps can be distributed through private web sites, and without
any encryption they would be easier to hack. I understand that I
Is there a reason we can't encrypt the main stack in standalone settings
when building for mobile?
I can set set a password if I uncheck the mobile app options, set the
password, then re-enable mobile builds, and the password remains. I'm
not sure if it is actually used though when building fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
