Standalone build workaround

[J. Landman Gay]

That's what happened to the person I'm helping. He's not a sophisticated 
coder and needed someone else to write a basic openstack handler a few 
years ago. He's been tinkering with the stack now and then and building new 
apps occasionally as it changed. He called me, very distressed, and was 
ready to throw out LC entirely. He'd been trying for a week to build the 
app and was getting infinite repeated error dialogs that couldn't be 
dismissed. The error dialog was empty so there was no clue what was wrong 
and clicking the Script button did nothing.

He had contacted support but couldn't afford the rate they wanted to debug 
the problem. He had no idea why the build suddenly failed all of a sudden. 
He's a paying Indie customer and LC would have lost him.

So yeah, there's repercussions. I do understand the choice the team had to 
make, but most of us were used to the old way and had already accommodated.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On September 19, 2018 6:22:05 PM Graham Samuel via use-livecode 
<use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> I am very late to this conversation, but does this mean that a very naive 
> user, devising a simple app that is going to end up as a standalone, will 
> suddenly be plunged into weird unguided coding issues just because the code 
> contains ‘preOpenStack’ and similar handlers, maybe even a ‘Startup’ 
> handler (I use those a lot myself)? If this is true, then I agree with 
> Richard that LiveCode has suddenly got a loss less attractive in its 
> central function - the creation of software that runs on the developer’s 
> chosen platform(s). Just tell me I’m wrong.
>
> Graham
>
>> On 20 Sep 2018, at 00:47, Monte Goulding via use-livecode 
>> <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 20 Sep 2018, at 6:18 am, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
>>> <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Building a standalone is the whole point of the process of developing with 
>>> LC, and now that it's so disruptive it kills the joy of choosing LiveCode.
>>>
>>> For more than a decade I've believed making the SB into a separate process 
>>> would be a good idea.
>>>
>>> It's no longer a good idea.  It's now a necessity.
>>
>> Unfortunately we are caught between leaving the stack in a state where any 
>> local variables that are meant to be initialised are unset or letting the 
>> engine do its thing when the stack reopens and send messages that allow 
>> those initialisations to occur. The latter, while a big change, was 
>> considered the lesser of two evils because at least it allows you to code 
>> around the situation rather than just ending up with a stack in a state 
>> where you need to quit and restart the IDE.
>>
>> Ideally, yes, standalone building (at least the parts that manipulate the 
>> open stacks causing them to need to be reverted) would be a separate process.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Monte
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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