I don't find the feature parity close enough that it "is easily worked
around by copying the script to a text file and including it that way".
Some of the things that are "best practice" (IMO) for stack scripting
just don't work when the script is saved to a text file and included:
- private functions and handlers (don't work at all - cause an error)
- script local variables (still work - but are not script local, so
you may get name space pollution and dreadful-to-debug problems)
and some features are just unavailable
- can't use password-protected stacks, so you cannot protect stack
scripts on clients' sites
Having said that - I'm still an enthusiast for .irev files as a better
way to do server-side LC scripting, I just wish we could get a released
version some day soon.
-- Alex.
On 18/02/2011 19:02, J. Landman Gay wrote:
The server product already does what it's supposed to, and it works
well. We are missing the ability to insert a stack script as a
library, but that is easily worked around by copying the script to a
text file and including it that way. We are also required at present
to load all images onto the server instead of storing them in a stack
file, but that is the standard for web development anyway.
On 18/02/2011 21:22, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 2/18/11 1:41 PM, Keith Clarke wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Jaque. So, I already had the current
LiveCode server before I 'invested' in the revServer myth.
Depends on what we're talking about. You asked about feature parity;
in that respect, 3.5 and 4.x are similar as far as what you can do
with server-side scripting and the engine itself. There are bug fixes
in 4.x of course and some added commands and syntax that might be
useful depending on what you need to do.
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
