>In deference to Shari, I think she's talking about protecting the *data* in
>the stack, not the scripts. Even a password protected and cantModify-ed
>stack can still be opened in MetaCard and the cards freely viewed.
>
>Shari, if this is your concern, my suggestion would be to keep card 1 of
>you
#x27;s
going on and get around it.
Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
- Original Message -
From: "J. Landman Gay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:25 PM
Subject: R
On 6/27/02 7:02 PM, Shari wrote:
>
> But if you are creating a standalone to distribute, a password is a bad
> thing. The objective is to create a program, to distribute, but have
> whatever data you want "hidden" to remain that way even if someone tries
> to get into it. It is easier to "br
Recently, "Shari" wrote:
>> Such protections are afforded all password-protected stacks, standalone or
>> not.
>
> But if you are creating a standalone to distribute, a password is a
> bad thing. The objective is to create a program, to distribute, but
> have whatever data you want "hidden" to
--On Thursday, June 27, 2002 20:02:34 -0400 Shari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Such protections are afforded all password-protected stacks, standalone
>> or not.
>
> But if you are creating a standalone to distribute, a password is a bad
> thing. The objective is to create a program, to dist
>Such protections are afforded all password-protected stacks, standalone or
>not.
But if you are creating a standalone to distribute, a password is a
bad thing. The objective is to create a program, to distribute, but
have whatever data you want "hidden" to remain that way even if
someone tri
Shari wrote:
>> Recently, Simon Lord wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and
>>> actually save those changes?
>>
>> Nope. You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to
>> what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack an
>> You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to
>> what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack and using a
>> small standalone engine to run the stack -- changes are save by the engine
>> to the stack.
> Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using a standalon
--On Thursday, June 27, 2002 11:57:24 -0400 Shari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Actually, you can protect a stack as well as a standalone. Set the
>> cantModify to true, give it a password and save it. The only thing
>> someone with MC will be able to do is open your stack and view the cards
>
>Actually, you can protect a stack as well as a standalone. Set the
>cantModify to true, give it a password and save it. The only thing someone
>with MC will be able to do is open your stack and view the cards - they
>won't be able to view or change scripts, and even if they move objects
>around,
n Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Shari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Saving a standalone
> >Rece
>Recently, Simon Lord wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and
>> actually save those changes?
>
>Nope. You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to
>what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack and using a
>small standal
Recently, Simon Lord wrote:
> Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and
> actually save those changes?
Nope. You can only edit/save (non-standalone) stacks. You can get close to
what you ask by keeping the bulk of your scripts in a stack and using a
small standalone engine
Is it possible to have a standalone make changes to itself and
actually save those changes?
Sincerely,
Simon
___
metacard mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
14 matches
Mail list logo
