Exactly. I was hoping the Standalone Builder would do that if you choose to include external SoS in the standalone.

What I found instead is that it doesn't being them into the standalone stack file as substacks, nor even convert them to binary stack files in place. It just refuses to allow a password to be set.

For apps making rich use of SoS, it would seem tedious to do that conversion by hand, or to expect every developer to write the same pair of handlers to automate that before and after building the standalone.

How do folks who use SoS frequently protect those SoS scripts?

 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems

J. Landman Gay wrote:
My thought was that you'd use the text files during development and then save them as binary with encryption for the final build.

Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On January 14, 2020 11:38:06 AM Kaveh Bazargan via use-livecode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

The benefits of SoS are so important that I would hate to have to go back
to binary again. Nothing like having pure text files to version, back up
etc. so I am also hoping for an elegant solution to encode these in

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 17:31, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

Sure, and with the extra benefit that you wouldn't have to expose your
code to end-users.

That is, unless there's a way to include SoS in a standalone that
includes encryption, such as an automated method in the Standalone Builder.

I couldn't find one, but it seems like such a pervasive issue for the
class of devs most likely to use SoS (pros dependent on VCS) that I'm
hoping I just missed something.

  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems

use-livecode mailing list
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 

Reply via email to