Player and an unusual occurrence (bug or buggy developer)?

Marian Petrides mpetrides at earthlink.net
Thu Jul 22 11:25:29 EDT 2004


I am obviously missing something.  What is the Player, how is it 
different from a self-contained standalone stack and how does one 
create a stack that the Player plays. Am I understanding correctly that 
the Player creates a single standalone that can be used on any 
supported platform?

If so, what has been done about the problems with text display being 
inconsistent across platforms.  Right now, I have two different set of 
stacks, which are identical except for font issues.  One folder 
contains the stacks for the Mac (and a Mac standalone splash screen), 
the other contains stacks for Windows (and a Windows standalone splash 
screen).  Will Player eliminate the need for these two separate 
folders???

Also, in the process of trying 2.5 out I had the following unusual (but 
reproducible) occurrence.   Run 2.5b1 in Mac OS X 10.3.4.  Create a new 
mainstack with one field and one button. Verify that the only stack 
present in Application Browser is the new stack (call it TestStack). 
Save Test Stack.  Then save TestStack as standalone. Quit Rev.

Run standalone:  works fine, one field one button AOK

Double-click on TestStack.Rev (non-standalone file).  IDE opens with 
TestStack in foreground and an entirely different stack (the main stack 
for the project I just completed) behind it.  What gives??? Why is this 
happening?  A bug or something I missed doing when I created the new 
stack???

Also one piece of feedback on the new interface, I wish RunRev could go 
back to giving a different default name for each button, field, etc 
that is created, eg, field 1, field 2.  That way there is never any 
possibility (if I am sloppy and forget to explicitly rename the button, 
field, etc) for confusion as to the target of a command.  Just a 
thought.

M




On Jul 22, 2004, at 10:50 AM, Kevin Miller wrote:

> On 22/7/04 1:31 pm, "Malte Brill" <malte.brill at t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> 2.) Rev-online. I think this could become a cool place if it gets 
>> used. What
>> I really would love to see is how big in KB/MB the stacks are (I just 
>> looked
>> at it, so maybe this is somewhere I havent found yet) I created an 
>> account a
>> few minutes ago. If you download the Stack from my users section mind 
>> it is
>> 2.xx MB.
>
> I can see the point of that.  Rev Online will be used for serving 
> videos to
> people on broadband and stacks are likely to be smaller than that, but 
> I'll
> make a note.  I don't know if it will be in this release or the next 
> one.
>
>> 3.) Dreamcard. Will this have the same IDE or will it look 
>> differently? I
>> don´t understand the term " smoothed off interface" Does this 
>> describe what
>> the Interface is going to look in *all* versions?
>
> Essentially yes, though some options aren't available in Dreamcard, 
> those
> being noted in the FAQ.
>
>> I also would like to say that I am happy about the Player approach.
>> I haven´t looked at it too much by now, so maybe the following is 
>> redundant,
>> as it might be already implemented:
>>
>> I think it could be useful if the player would allow Autoplay for CD 
>> Roms.
>> This could be implemented by looking for a simple text file e.g. 
>> toc.txt
>> with only one line of text holding the relative path to the stack that
>> should be played. This would be a big plus (if it isn´t already 
>> possible).
>
> I think this should work with the current implementation, let us know 
> if you
> have any trouble getting it to.
>
>> Also I haven´t found a way to browse the local directory (but I just 
>> looked
>> at it for a few minutes). Also I would like to know which components 
>> is in
>> the player:
>>
>> imagelibrary/externals/cursors/...?
>
> We'll be shipping the Player as a separate download to test by itself
> shortly.  When we do that you can check what is included.
>
>> The new toolbar: It looks more modern. I liked the old one better, 
>> but I
>> think I will get used to it.
>
> Yeah, its always tricky when we make a change to the appearance of 
> anything.
> Ultimately though the old toolbar was really dated and we had to 
> update it.
> I don't think we're going to be able to get something that suits 
> everyone,
> stability was a higher priority than providing extra icon sets, and 
> the new
> one does looks clean, modern and functional.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kevin
>
> Kevin Miller ~ kevin at runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/
> Runtime Revolution - User-Centric Development Tools
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
>



More information about the use-livecode mailing list