Newbie question

[Bob Sneidar]

Yes, the primary difference between Hypercard and Revolution is that in HC cards WERE your records. Similar data got added in fields on many cards with the same "background". With Revolution, you have access to use SQL databases, so cards become more like forms that temporarily hold data for the user to work with. You script reading from and writing to the SQL tables. Using that method, you can see that there is not much use for backgrounds as such, except to repeat elements in order to maintain some kind of consistent "look and feel". 

For example, a logo could be set as a background so it only needs to be added once, and it shows up on every card looking and acting the same. I have an app I am working on that connects to an SQL database, and each card is a form to a particular table. But the navigation buttons and menus and such all work the same way on each card. So I make the navigation button group a background, and program the buttons in a generic way so that the code works no matter which card I am working with. 

Cards are so yesterday. :-)

Bob


On May 4, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Thomas McGrath III wrote:

> Steve, Welcome to RR.
> 
> I also came from the HC/SC background and was taken by the group "behave" issue, at first it seemed an oversight to a much used convention. But since I've been using RR I have found that I use backgrounds less and less. I think this is one thing that truly differentiates RR from HC and SC. In HC I used Cards with backgrounds in every project, then in SC I made the jump to windows with many cards and some backgrounds and now I use many stacks with windows with some cards and very few backgrounds. It is a change in the way I have come to think about our style of programming. The message path and properties etc. take on a much more important roll nowadays and some things like background behaviors taken on a much smaller role.
> 
> Anyway, you seem to have found what you need so Welcome and hope to see you more on the list.
> 
> 
> Tom McGrath
> 
> 
> On May 4, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
> 
>> Aha - that was it.  Didn't even see that option.  No very intuitive.  You have to create a GROUP and then assign it to be a BACKGROUND rather than just going straight to a background to begin with.  I guess there's more flexibility that way.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Steve