David Burgun wrote:
Hi,
There are a number of reasons to extract the Scripts of RunRev Objects
into seperate text files:
1. We have to check files into a Source Database (Source Control
System) and Binary Files are not handlied that well.
<snip>
6 We want to write an "include" file pre-processor that grabs
functions from a Common Include file.
There are more reasons that this, but these are the main ones off the
top of my head!
Those sound to me like good reasons. But the question is whether the
associating of scripts to objects *needs* to be done within a standalone
executable ?
At first glance, it seems feasible to achieve all (or very nearly all)
of those objectives with a system like :
- scripts are kept in the database
- when it is time to release, a "build" script collects the scripts
from the database and sets them into the script of the various objects
- the standalone builder is then run to create the standalone.
That would seem to get 5 out of the 6 issues covered cleanly, and could
still be usable (with slight inconvenience) by QA to rebuild with
earlier script versions. If that was a critical issue, you could
(easily?) provide a mechanism to allow multiple versions of the scripts
to be attached, with a run-time selection between them, for QA
investigative usage.
--
Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/80 - Release Date: 23/08/2005
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
