System Tray in Windows?

Dar Scott dsc at swcp.com
Wed Oct 9 19:42:00 EDT 2002


On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 02:43 PM, Jim Biancolo wrote:

>    [1] Is it possible to create apps in RunRev that act as services, 
> chugging away quietly in the background (like a web server, for example)?

Hi, Jim!  I wrote this (below) to the list about half a year ago.  I'd 
double check everything.  If you find any trouble with this method, let us 
know.  Let me know!  I'm about to use it Real Soon Now.

-- Dar

> On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 09:16 PM, Troy Rollins wrote:
>
>> So, how'd you go about it?
>
> I used srvany.exe to run the standalone as a service.  It and 
> documentation is in the W2K resource kit.  (If you can find servany, but 
> not the help, let me know and I give a few tips.)  I couldn't get srvany.
> exe to work right by putting the standalone path into the "Start 
> Parameters" field in services; I had to change the registry.  (I didn't 
> use Revolution to change the registry, I wasn't sure whether it could add 
> keys.)
>
> I put my startup code in a handler named startup in the stack.  This 
> starts the send cycles and will eventually start the comm cycles.
>
> I was able to run the service with or without a GUI and with or without 
> network communication (UDP broadcast for testing).  (The common wisdom is 
> that Microsoft won't let you do both, so I don't know what I did for that.
> )  There is a check box in services which controls this:  "Allow services 
> to interact with desktop."  While you are logged out, the GUI is invisible.
>
> I haven't tested whether openCard or openStack are called when the GUI is 
> turned off.
>
> If you know you will not need the GUI you might see if the service loads 
> faster if you make the stack invisible.  I haven't tested this.  (I 
> imagine the standalone going through the motions of painting, but the 
> painting having no effect.)
>
> I haven't set up the dependencies yet.  I don't think I have to since TCP/
> IP loads as a driver before the services.
>
> I bet one could run the simple chat demo as a service this way.
>
> That's all I know and perhaps a little more.




More information about the Use-livecode mailing list