Re: Mystery with arrays (lost key)
At 7:11 pm -0400 9/4/02, andu wrote: In this case test2 is still a variable but it also has a value and keys() returns the correct number of keys. Having to quote or not a variable name depending on it having a value is not exactly the Metacard I use to know ;-). Don't you have this the wrong way round? :) Going back to the original example in this thread on mouseUp IF 1=2 THEN put 1 into test2 else put 55 into GrandTotals[test1] put 66 into GrandTotals[test2] put 22 into GrandTotals[test3] end if put keys (GrandTotals) end mouseUp The poster (T.G.) seemed surprised that test2 wasn't a valid key. I think the bigger surprise should be that test1 and test3 are valid keys. The standard way to use literals is to quote them. The fact that Metacard let's us get away without quoting literals if there is no variable with the same name isn't a good reason to do it that way. For our sanity, we should probably always presume the following two statements will produce different results. put 66 into GrandTotals[test2] put 66 into GrandTotals[test2] Cheers Dave Cragg ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Mystery with arrays (lost key)
For me, the use of non-quoted literals is more the source of confusion than any other factor. If they weren't allowed, then MC would require the above lines in question to look like this: put 1 into test2 put 55 into GrandTotals[test1] put 66 into GrandTotals[test2] put 22 into GrandTotals[test3] Then it would be explicit and clear why keys(GrandTotals) are what they are above: 1-- (value of 'test2' variable, used as a key) test1-- (test1 string) test3-- (test3 string) I believe MC's assumption about 'test1' and 'test3' being char strings was meant to make life easier for us. In this case, however, MC's ease-of-use string-handling seems to be giving us enough rope to hang ourselves! As far as I know, the use of non-quoted literals comes from HyperTalk and Scott strongly recommends to always quote literals. It is definitely a cleaner way to code and eliminates any ambiguities. Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
MetaCard 2.4.2 gamma-test
The MetaCard 2.4.2 gamma test (release candidate) is now available in the directory ftp://ftp.metacard.com/MetaCard/2.4.2/ Only the usual Win32/Mac/Linux engines are available there now, but we'll be building the rest of the UNIX platforms over the next couple of days and will put them in that directory as they become available. Regards, Scott Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that... ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Determine Write Protection?
I asked: On Windows, is there any way to determine if a folder or the drive is write-protected without actually trying to write a file? In answer to the above, it is correct that I can use the detailed folders function to retrieve the file permissions of a folder? If yes, then apparently 777 is OK to write, but 555 is read-only? Thanks Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director, Tactile Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
RE: Determine Write Protection?
-Original Message- From: Scott Rossi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] In answer to the above, it is correct that I can use the detailed folders function to retrieve the file permissions of a folder? If yes, then apparently 777 is OK to write, but 555 is read-only? Well, more accurately 777 is read, write, and execute for owner, group, and world. And 555 is read and execute for owner, group, and world. But, I see now that you are talking about folders (directories), and they must have execute privileges. If, however you only wanted read permissions for everyone for a file, with no ability to execute the file, then the proper permissions would be 444 -Glen Yates ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Determine Write Protection?
Scott Rossi wrote: I asked: On Windows, is there any way to determine if a folder or the drive is write-protected without actually trying to write a file? In answer to the above, it is correct that I can use the detailed folders function to retrieve the file permissions of a folder? If yes, then apparently 777 is OK to write, but 555 is read-only? Don't know on Windows but on Linux 666 is read/write for all and 644 is read/write by owner and read by others. Maybe that helps. Thanks Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director, Tactile Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard -- Regards, Andu Novac ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Determine Write Protection?
From: Scott Rossi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] In answer to the above, it is correct that I can use the detailed folders function to retrieve the file permissions of a folder? If yes, then apparently 777 is OK to write, but 555 is read-only? Well, more accurately 777 is read, write, and execute for owner, group, and world. And 555 is read and execute for owner, group, and world. But, I see now that you are talking about folders (directories), and they must have execute privileges. If, however you only wanted read permissions for everyone for a file, with no ability to execute the file, then the proper permissions would be 444 Thanks for this Glen. Actually, what I need to verify is that a selected directory has write permissions. It appears from checking several pre-existing writable folders that the octal is 777 on these. So in my script I was planning to use: # tFolderInfo is the detailed folder # information of a user-specified folder if item 10 of tFolderInfo 777 then doAlertStuff In your opinion, will this suffice? Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director, Tactile Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
RE: Determine Write Protection?
-Original Message- From: Scott Rossi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Thanks for this Glen. Actually, what I need to verify is that a selected directory has write permissions. It appears from checking several pre-existing writable folders that the octal is 777 on these. So in my script I was planning to use: # tFolderInfo is the detailed folder # information of a user-specified folder if item 10 of tFolderInfo 777 then doAlertStuff In your opinion, will this suffice? No. Because, lets say I create a directory mydir and I don't want other people to muck with it, so I do a: chmod 755 mydir Now if I run your program, I should still be able to write to this directory, but if someone else ran your program, then they would not be able to write to that directory. Remember, that the permissions are in the order (user, group, other). -Glen Yates ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Protecting Things from prying eyes....
I recently ask the list for suggestions about the best method for protecting images that are stored on an web server but accessed from within Metacard. Thanks to everyone who responded. Here are a couple of follow up notes... Dave Cragg suggested. One way would be to store the images as custom properties in a metacard stack (one or more images per stack). This would stop them being viewed by a browser or other application. (But the image data could be retrieved by anyone with Metacard.) Then download the image stack, open it invisibly, put the custom property that holds the image into the image object in your Metacard application. I did think about doing that. What I liked about having each image seperate (if encoded and compressed) is the fact that I can get Metacard to start downloading the images individually and storing them in the cache. In some cases there may be lots of pictures in some sections (may be 50 -60) other sections will only have a few (perhaps 5 or so). Only one picture will be shown at a time. By individually downloading each picture the app should seem much more responsive. Dar Scott thought 1) I could either encrypt the images using some other method than base64 I am open to suggestions about how I could do this. Any simple method I give you would hardly be better than the obfuscation that you already have. If you must do more, the next step is serious encryption. One approach is to have the stack run a command line PGP application. Since NAI dropped the PGP line, your choices are limited if this is a commercial application. I'd consider GnuPG. It is available on several platforms. It is a little rough around the edges but should work for your narrow need. (If you find a shrink wrapped legal copy of PGP 6.5.8 command line commercial and don't need it, contact me.) I did consider a better form of encryption and even started doing some preliminary investigations into it. I concluded that while doing this would be very interesting and very useful for me and other people (I don't think I will be the only person interested in encryption of material for use in Metacard :-) )It kind of turns a small project into a big one. Alternately, if you have control over all computers involved, turn on IPSec for the applicable connections. Unfortunately the requirements of the app mean this won't be possible. Users will need to be able to access the suff from home as well. 2) I could build a better password protected site with cgi's or ASP or some such thing though then I have issues with server hosting etc. Same problems What I was thinking of doing was something along the lines of Metacard app contacts server. Server sends out the password for the day, hour or minute for example...Bob Metacard then compares the password, Bob with an internal list, which could be very long... -- Bob =Eachway -- Fred =ies_back -- Jack =Upped Metacard logs on as Eachway with a post type of action and gets the images etc required. A bit of time passes. An internall function on the server changes the required password for access to Jack So while the passwords will be visible it will takle a resonable amount of effort to get all of the required passwords. Basically you will have to monitor what the Metacard app is up to over a period of time. That could be quite a considerable period of time. Not that I am actaully going to do this. Just an idea 3) I am just being to paranoid about the whole thing. If anyone get's through all of the road blocks I have created perhaps I should just give them a chocolate fish and a certificate and not worry about it... Simple obfuscation is appropriate in some cases and it may be in this case. You have to look at the economic factors for the spy and use that to assess the probabilities in assessing your risk (prob and cost). You also should look at other factors such as the cost of the stack getting bogus pictures. If these are pictures of a new product and you don't want Ford, Microsoft or France to see them, then you may need strong encryption. On the other hand, if you don't want people to see your maps of NZ that you worked so hard to make unless they pay for it, then encryption is less important. My wild guess is that you can probably get by with even simpler obfuscation and then forget about it. You are correct. I think Ken Ray's response says it all... 1) I could either encrypt the images using some other method than base64 I am open to suggestions about how I could do this. 2) I could build a better password protected site with cgi's or ASP or some such thing though then I have issues with server hosting etc. 3) I am just being to paranoid about the whole thing. If anyone get's through all of the road blocks I have created perhaps I should just give them a chocolate fish and a certificate and not worry about it... 3. :-) Ken Ray Thanks to all of you Michael Crawford..
Re: MetaCard 2.4.2 gamma-test
is Metacard 2.4.2B4 PPC good for Mac 9.2.2? = [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikhansen.org __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Call WinAPI?
I have a MetaCard stack that launches a client's installer (InstallShield). The client wants to me to determine if I can hide the decompress progressbar of their installer using my MetaCard stack. I was asked by the programmer of the client to see if I can get MetaCard to call WinAPI to launch our setup and use Shell32.ShellExecute with SW_SHOWMINIMIZED to hide the progress bar. Anyone know if the above can be translated into a command/script that I can issue from MC? Thanks Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director, Tactile Media [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tactilemedia.com ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Call WinAPI?
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 07:24 PM, Ken Ray wrote: If they don't have a command line argument, you will need to have some other app (such as a small VB app) do this for you (unless someone else knows how to do this). Try the shell command start. I use it for console apps and it might work for GUIs. I'm not sure what Windows has that, though. My W2K does. Dar Scott ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Call WinAPI?
I opened a DOS window on my Win98SE machine and got this info about 'start'. Looks like it should indeed be able to launch an app minimized. = beginning Microsoft(R) Windows 98 (C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1981-1999. C:\WINDOWSstart /? Runs a Windows program or an MS-DOS program. START [options] program [arg...] START [options] document.ext /m[inimized] Run the new program minimized (in the background). /max[imized] Run the new program maximized (in the foreground). /r[estored] Run the new program restored (in the foreground). [default] /w[ait] Does not return until the other program exits. C:\WINDOWS === end = Phil - Original Message - From: Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 6:53 PM Subject: Re: Call WinAPI? On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 07:24 PM, Ken Ray wrote: If they don't have a command line argument, you will need to have some other app (such as a small VB app) do this for you (unless someone else knows how to do this). Try the shell command start. I use it for console apps and it might work for GUIs. I'm not sure what Windows has that, though. My W2K does. Dar Scott ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: Return Character Substitute
Ray Horsley wrote/ schreef: Any suggestions on a good substitute for the return character. What about urlEncode() -ing the input? Thanks, Ray Horsley Regards, / Groeten, Sjoerd ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
