RevServer deployment on OSX Server
alex at tweedly.net
Fri Feb 18 19:48:30 EST 2011
I don't find the feature parity close enough that it "is easily worked
around by copying the script to a text file and including it that way".
Some of the things that are "best practice" (IMO) for stack scripting
just don't work when the script is saved to a text file and included:
- private functions and handlers (don't work at all - cause an error)
- script local variables (still work - but are not script local, so
you may get name space pollution and dreadful-to-debug problems)
and some features are just unavailable
- can't use password-protected stacks, so you cannot protect stack
scripts on clients' sites
Having said that - I'm still an enthusiast for .irev files as a better
way to do server-side LC scripting, I just wish we could get a released
version some day soon.
On 18/02/2011 19:02, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> The server product already does what it's supposed to, and it works
> well. We are missing the ability to insert a stack script as a
> library, but that is easily worked around by copying the script to a
> text file and including it that way. We are also required at present
> to load all images onto the server instead of storing them in a stack
> file, but that is the standard for web development anyway.
On 18/02/2011 21:22, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 2/18/11 1:41 PM, Keith Clarke wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification Jaque. So, I already had the current
>> LiveCode server before I 'invested' in the revServer myth.
> Depends on what we're talking about. You asked about feature parity;
> in that respect, 3.5 and 4.x are similar as far as what you can do
> with server-side scripting and the engine itself. There are bug fixes
> in 4.x of course and some added commands and syntax that might be
> useful depending on what you need to do.
More information about the Use-livecode