savingStandalone message

Ben Rubinstein benr_mc at cogapp.com
Tue Nov 15 13:51:47 EST 2016


On 15/11/2016 17:14, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> I'm less certain about the count params, and would favor a build number.
> But that would require that all of us use build numbers, and perhaps some
> don't, so I'm not opposed either.

To be clear, which I may not have been, my proposal was that the parameters 
should allow the message handler to know
	- what platform this standalone is being built for
	- how many standalones are being built in a single pass, and whether this is 
the first, last, or somewhere in between

The latter was really to support Paul's requirement to increment a build 
number, which would be the same for all the standalones built in that pass, 
but would be incremented on the next pass. There are certainly other ways to 
achieve this.

If you're proposing that the LC IDE maintain a build number for every stack, 
that might save a bit of effort for some sub-set of the audience which uses 
build numbers; but for those who for whatever reason use build numbers or 
similar in some scheme incompatible with the one provided, it might make 
workarounds more complicated. I certainly wouldn't object to it as an 
additional feature!

Ben

On 15/11/2016 17:14, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Ben Rubinstein wrote:
>
>> Paul, I'd think that your needs (which certainly overlap with
>> mine...) could be met by adopting Ali's suggestion in that report
>> of a single message with parameter to indicate which platform was
>> being built for, if there was an additional parameter to indicate
>> that several standalones were being built at
>> once. Even if it was as crude as:
>>     savingStandalone  "Windows", 1, 3
>>     savingStandalone  "iOS", 2, 3
>>     savingStandalone  "Android", 3, 3
>>
>> That would allow work to be done for the general case to be coded
>> once, even if it actually ran three times; platform-specific cases
>> to be handled; and if you wanted to do something like increment a
>> build number to be the same across platforms, you could increment
>> only for the "1/3" case.
>
> Agreed.  Parameters allow for simpler implementation while still delivering
> platform differentiation.
>
> I'm less certain about the count params, and would favor a build number.  But
> that would require that all of us use build numbers, and perhaps some don't,
> so I'm not opposed either.
>




More information about the Use-livecode mailing list