Crazy script-only stack question

[Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami]

Not barking up the wrong tree at all, with multi-stack apps very much in the wind…a subject of interest indeed. Agreed with Igor, (ala bug 10275_) not having and a RCS for the binary stacks themselves is a nuisance. But your 5 liner doesn't solve that either.

But how does creating a stack and setting it's script to a text file different from adding a stack to your framework and then setting the behavior of that stack to the text only script?  

Or put another way, what advantage would it have over the behavior of the stack?  And since your newly created stack has no controls, those would all need to be created by script and this is exactly what LiveCode provides: WSIWG layout environment (albeit needs a lot of work to get to 2018 standards ) 

A case can be made for treating the binary stacks as a "view" Typically there is a split in the team between design and code. This is also happening universally where designers are doing UI/UX prototypes in InVision Or Zeplin.. (no code)  and push these over to the code team. 

We have such stacks in the SivaSivaApp. where there is almost no code in the stack at all. We use "the target" …in the text only behavior stacks… this is working pretty well as once the eye candy and UX is locked in, we are not touching that too much, if anyone is, it's usually just one person, so pulling and pushing the binary from GIT is not that big a deal… conflict wise… of course if some others on the team *do* want to touch the UI, then it gets messy

BR

On 1/22/18, 10:21 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Geoff Canyon via use-livecode" <use-livecode-bounces at lists.runrev.com on behalf of use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

    Is there any reason script-only stacks had to be implemented in the engine?
    
    Is there any reason *not* to implement their equivalent in about five lines
    of code in the mainstack of a project? i.e.,
    
    on loadTextStack tFilePath
        put url ("file:/" & tFilePath) into tStackData
        put line 1 of tStackData into tStackName
        create invisible stack tStackName
        set the script of stack tStackName to line 2 to -1 of tStackData
        send "openStack" to stack tStackName
    end loadTextStack
    
    This would immediately fix the issue of chained behaviors, and allow for
    the incremental implementation of a far richer format for text-based stack
    storage, leading to gains in project-definition source control.
    
    Given that Bug 10275 <http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10275> is
    over five years and several versions old, am I barking up a tree with this,
    or making sense?
    
    with no clue,
    
    Geoff