Standalone - Using stack as DB
scott at elementarysoftware.com
Sat Aug 2 05:17:48 EDT 2008
I think a common variation is to have a standalone application (which
most "long-timers" try to put minimal code into), a "program main
stack" (perhaps with substacks) which can also be a stack file that
the standalone loads first to establish the interface (and doesn't
need to be saved), and data files which can also be substacks. Then
just the data substacks need to be involved with the save process.
Keeping the data separate from the everything else has been consistent
advice on this list.
(Now with 20% less chalk dust!)
email scott at elementarysoftware.com
On Aug 2, 2008, at 1:35 AM, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
> Yes, very true. This is, now its pointed out, obviously the
> source of my power off/saving problem. Its also an argument against
> the traditional splash stack and then a real program + data stack,
> is it
> not? One should rather have a program main stack, and then data
> No need ever to save the program stack since it never changes, just
> save the
> data stacks as changed. Is this what you usually do?
> Eric Chatonet wrote:
>> I should have added that this way of doing never mix any line of code
>> with user's data in the same file. And I think it important.
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Standalone---Using-stack-as-DB-tp18756589p18787268.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode