RevServer deployment on OSX Server

[Alex Tweedly]

I don't find the feature parity close enough that it "is easily worked 
around by copying the script to a text file and including it that way".

Some of the things that are "best practice" (IMO) for stack scripting 
just don't work when the script is saved to a text file and included:

  - private functions and handlers (don't work at all - cause an error)
  - script local variables (still work - but are not script local, so 
you may get name space pollution and dreadful-to-debug problems)

and some features are just unavailable

  - can't use password-protected stacks, so you cannot protect stack 
scripts on clients' sites

Having said that - I'm still an enthusiast for .irev files as a better 
way to do server-side LC scripting, I just wish we could get a released 
version some day soon.

-- Alex.

On 18/02/2011 19:02, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> The server product already does what it's supposed to, and it works 
> well. We are missing the ability to insert a stack script as a 
> library, but that is easily worked around by copying the script to a 
> text file and including it that way. We are also required at present 
> to load all images onto the server instead of storing them in a stack 
> file, but that is the standard for web development anyway.
>

On 18/02/2011 21:22, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 2/18/11 1:41 PM, Keith Clarke wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification Jaque. So, I already had the current
>> LiveCode server before I 'invested' in the revServer myth.
>
> Depends on what we're talking about. You asked about feature parity; 
> in that respect, 3.5 and 4.x are similar as far as what you can do 
> with server-side scripting and the engine itself. There are bug fixes 
> in 4.x of course and some added commands and syntax that might be 
> useful depending on what you need to do.