Trevor DeVore wrote:

> We agree that LiveCode should include a sensible baseline for building
> a standalone. We also agree that they shouldn't try to write solutions
> for all possible ways that someone may need to distribute a
> standalone. My 2 cents is that LiveCode should provide a way for 3rd
> parties to expand on what happens when a standalone is being built.
> This is more than just turning off an option. Turning off an option
> would introduce an absence of behavior. I'm suggesting the addition of
> behavior that can occur during key points of the standalone building
> process.

Yeah, in my effort to try to minimize my TL/DRs I didn't include a detailed specification, using colloquialism where more precision may have been useful.

I'm assuming they'd do something similar to what we have now with the pre- and post-build messages. When we consider those, the Plugins subsystem, pubsub, and the vast range of other IDE hooks, I feel pretty confident that they wouldn't suddenly change direction and make a locked-down hookless solution on this one.

> Perhaps all use cases can adequately be handled with the messages that
> are already sent once when a standalone builder finishes (e.g.
> savingStandalone and standaloneSaved).
> But, perhaps the standalone building process would be better served
> with additional, more granular callbacks, and maybe those callbacks
> are sent to a target other than the stack being saved. That is what
> I would like to be considered when modernizing the Standalone Builder.

Like that.

I think we're all on the same page here.

 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web

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

Reply via email to