Putting stacks on a web site: doc or standalone?

Ken Norris pixelbird at interisland.net
Sun Sep 7 15:35:00 EDT 2003


Hi Dom,

> Subject: Re: Putting stacks on a web site: doc or standalone?
> From: mcdomi at free.fr (Dom)
> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 18:49:25 +0200
> 
> Dan Shafer <dan at shafermedia.com> wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Alex here. I'd use a compressed standalone if the intent
>> is for users to download and run the product/application from the Web.
> 
> OK... a download stack, such as "tmpanel", plus standalone capabilites?
----------
Sort of. Make a standalone *anything* and it will have the runtime engine.
When you open it, the engine runs and you can open other stacks.

Any standalone app *is* a player, so there is no need for a separate player.

It's one of the first things I realized about Rev.

You want a player? Make a standalone that says "WhatChaMaCallIt PLAYER" on
the first card if you like, then send the window offscreen after a few
seconds. That's all. Your RR/MC engine is running.

Of course, everyone here mostly uses the standalone to put up their own
splash window with RR and other credits, and initializing processes while
it's onscreen.

Anyway, all you have to do is have your users download a folder with the
standalone and stacks, and a doc that tells them where to put the stacks, or
an installer module that does it the first time from the app, according to
platform requirements.

Having a separate "Player" is unnecessary.

Ken N.




More information about the use-livecode mailing list