I think the real point of contention is the fact that stack files preform double duty
(source and binary) in Revolution. This behavior seems a bit troublesome. Maybe the
appropriate behavior is for stack files to behave as source modules ("included" via
standard include paths or from the residing directory) until they are in a
stand-alone. When Revolution creates a stand-alone maybe it should use a stackFiles
like property to copy each supporting stack file to the residing directory of the
executable. Then amend each entry to reflect the stack files new location. This
would allow the be of both worlds.
Kevin
-==-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer:
Any resemblance between the above views and those of my
employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely
coincidental.
Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them
is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of
the reader
is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient.
(A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the
scope of this article.)
--- On Thu 04/08, Richard Gaskin < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
From: Richard Gaskin [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:17:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Relative Paths
Monte Goulding wrote:<br>> My question would be why is it necessary to ask your users
to directly<br>> manipulate files and folders in and around your applications. It's a
simple<br>> task to include an interface to abstract the user away from direct file
and<br>> folder manipulation. I'd hazard a guess that many windows users don't
even<br>> know where their applications are stored let alone want to mess with
them.<br><br>And yet Photoshop is a best-selling application on Windows as it is on
Mac.<br><br>We don't have the product managers from all the other vendors who do
<br>this here to explain their choices, but perhaps someone at RunRev will <br>answer
your question with regard to Rev.<br><br>>>Note that Revolution's components are also
outside the bundle as they<br>>>are with mine.<br>> <br>> Well if rev had all the IDE
components in the app bundle it would make<br>> standalone building tricky for a
start. But that's not a design issue that<br>> many of us need to deal w
ith.<br><br>But others of us do, and we're no different than RunRev, Microsoft,
<br>Adobe, Macromedia, and several dozen other app vendors in terms of how <br>we
structure our deliverables.<br><br>I think it's nice that we have the option of going
both ways, hiding <br>things in bundles for OS X if we choose or structuring things
more <br>explicitely, the way Mac Classic and all other operating systems work.
<br>Since its possible to structure things both ways there's no need to <br>dictate
one or the other, and each has its merits for different kinds of <br>apps.<br><br>My
question was not whether everyone should deliver every app the same <br>way RunRev,
Adobe, and I do. My question was whether the freedom we <br>currently have to use
either method could be made easier as well.<br><br>-- <br> Richard Gaskin<br> Fourth
World Media Corporation<br>
___________________________________________________________<br> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.FourthWorld.com<
br>_______________________________________________<br>use-revolution mailing
list<br>[EMAIL
PROTECTED]<br>http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution<br>
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
