We don't need a Player (was Re: New(?) Idea for Standalones)

[Richard Gaskin]

Trevor DeVore wrote:

 > We agree that LiveCode should include a sensible baseline for building
 > a standalone. We also agree that they shouldn't try to write solutions
 > for all possible ways that someone may need to distribute a
 > standalone. My 2 cents is that LiveCode should provide a way for 3rd
 > parties to expand on what happens when a standalone is being built.
 > This is more than just turning off an option. Turning off an option
 > would introduce an absence of behavior. I'm suggesting the addition of
 > behavior that can occur during key points of the standalone building
 > process.

Yeah, in my effort to try to minimize my TL/DRs I didn't include a 
detailed specification, using colloquialism where more precision may 
have been useful.

I'm assuming they'd do something similar to what we have now with the 
pre- and post-build messages.  When we consider those, the Plugins 
subsystem, pubsub, and the vast range of other IDE hooks, I feel pretty 
confident that they wouldn't suddenly change direction and make a 
locked-down hookless solution on this one.


 > Perhaps all use cases can adequately be handled with the messages that
 > are already sent once when a standalone builder finishes (e.g.
 > savingStandalone and standaloneSaved).
 >
 > But, perhaps the standalone building process would be better served
 > with additional, more granular callbacks, and maybe those callbacks
 > are sent to a target other than the stack being saved. That is what
 > I would like to be considered when modernizing the Standalone Builder.

Like that.


I think we're all on the same page here.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com