At 11:37 PM +0200 on 4/9/00, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>>But they follow your guidelines, correct? And why don't you just put
>>them in use?
>
> I do. But openStack is never sent when a stack is start-used.
We can add a message for that.
> I didn't mean to give it cryptic syntax, however, I was thinking about
>some security measures:
>
>1) No real scriptable interface, to prevent viruses from changing internal
>behaviour of stacks
We could say the same against the message hierarchy, the set the script
of stack command, etc.
We could make it so that a change is only effective while the stack is in use.
>2) The editor is not part of the official distribution. It's a programmers'
>tool you have to separately download
There's no real reason to have to add another tool, or another bit of
complexity to the file format.
And how, prey tell, would this tool do it? Would it have to know the
internal format of stacks? If it's a FreeCard stack, we've just added a
cryptic interface over a simple one; and we've made it that much easier
to conceal those viruses you are so worried about.
>3) No changing at runtime. It should at least require restarting the
>application
You shouldn't have to stop what you're doing because you want to load
an extension. Follow the Unix way -- restarts shall not be required.
It's better.
>4) It should be application-global. You shouldn't be allowed to add syntax
>on a per-stack basis. This will remove the 'coolness' factor but still
>allow to have it in a standalone or in FC itself (e.g. make it a feature of
>the home stack only)
It will remove the ability to load plugins at runtime. I'm not willing
to sacrafice that to prevent a couple of `hax0r d00dz' from abusing it.
[Though, if you want to prevent abuse, I'll be happy to remove the do
command!]
>>And we'll put something like this in the manual:
>> ...and that should you use it for every trite bit of trivial
>> code your write, you'll be hung, drawn, quartered, boiled in
>> oil, soaked in chlorine, and given Ebola Zaire (not
>> necessarily in that order) by a posse of angry scripters.
>> Further, you'll go down in the history of computer science as
>> the only thing worse than INTERCAL's `come from' command, and
>> your first-born son/daughter will disown you; your second-
>> born will be killed by elephant excretement; and after that,
>> you'll be impotent/sterile and not have any more. But that's
>> not all, you are nothing but a spam-sucking[1] ooze of low-
>> quality bat toenails.
>
>It shouldn't be part of the user manual. It should also not be part of the
>user SDK. It should only be part of FC's internal documentation for people
>who want to join in development of the application. Oh, and it should be
>re-worded a bit. We don't want to tempt fate, do we?
We're not going to get to have any fun, are we? <g>
>
>>(Then again, we might just wind up with your FC gurus calling
>>themselves spam-sucking ooze or bat toenails... but, hell, that'll be
>>so funny that I don't want to stop it)
>
> Put it on your list of proposals on SourceForge so we'll remembe rit when
>the time arrives ;-)
Done :)
BTW: Expect a somewhat working NuParser in CVS soon.
