Protecting stacks

[stephen barncard]

actually I think the dynamic thing was my suggestion, I think but no
matter. Based on conversations on this list, the biggest reason for that
choice was to not have the  hassle to deal with passwords during
development and the possibility of losing everything.


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, J. Landman Gay <jacque at hyperactivesw.com>wrote:

> On 11/2/12 6:49 PM, Peter Bogdanoff wrote:
>
>  I see that in the Standalone Application Settings I can protect scripts
>> of stack files in the application. However, I have stack files that are
>> NOT in the application--the app just serves to launch files. How do I
>> protect the scripts in those files?
>>
>
> Passwords will protect the scripts, but Mark was right that if the stacks
> are separate files, another LiveCode app or the IDE could open and read
> them. If possible I'd put them all into the same app as substacks.
>
>
>
>> I can image when the files launch in the LiveCode IDE, a password is
>> asked, and a global is set to allow authoring. But what about when it's
>> opened as a raw text file?
>>
>
> Asking for a password won't work if messages are off; scripts won't run.
> Mark's idea of using encrypted content that is displayed dynamically could
> work.
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/**mailman/listinfo/use-livecode<http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode>
>



-- 



Stephen Barncard
San Francisco Ca. USA

more about sqb  <http://www.google.com/profiles/sbarncar>