On 8/3/11 8:24 PM, stephen barncard wrote:
wouldn't that case-turnaround be a bug that should be reported? It's good
practice to use lower case, however one should still be able to use any
legal filename for any file function.
Since servers are case-sensitive, I wonder if the OP had a
differen
s martin for drilling this down!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3717251.html
> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _
ing this down!
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3717251.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing li
ks.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3715876.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-live
Does your file has an .lc extension? If it has an .irev extension it will be
handled by the 3.5 engine.
Martin
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3715808.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list
does not receive any pre-open and open messages...
Anybody else having that working? thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3715789.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabbl
owser output.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3712679.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-
These are two file to test how stack perform with the server... so they need
to be put on a folder on your on-rev server.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3711190.html
Sent from the Revolution - User
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
> index.lc
> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/file/n3711139/index.lc
> index.lc
>
Nothing but a blank page in Safari on Snow Leopard 10.6.4. Was that link
supposed to perform some action?
_
index.lc
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/file/n3711139/index.lc
index.lc
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3711139.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
nts to try these, I uploaded both files.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3710035p3711137.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
us
Problem solved : no need to care about the global vars declarations
(unchanged). My problem was lying in the fact that LC-Server stacks libs
statements needs to be addressed as functions or commands and that direct
statements alike :
Hi Friends,
>
> Is there some special precautions to take i
On 8/1/11 1:50 PM, stephen barncard wrote:
Jacque, here is a 'virtual' home stack now in 4.6.3, as described in the
recent version notes.
Thanks, I shouldn't have speculated before I'm more educated. I didn't
know about Phil's suggestion to set the defaultstack either.
--
Jacqueline Landman
Jacque, here is a 'virtual' home stack now in 4.6.3, as described in the
recent version notes.
This global script is naturally integrated into the existing language
structure by being represented as an implicitly created 'Home' stack that
sits at the root of the message path - identical to the Hom
Hi Friends,
Is there some special precautions to take in about global variables management
and share between lc flat scripts and the stacks libs referenced on top of the
lc script ?
My habit is to declare all my global vars on top of both the lc scripts (witch
works fine) :
> global var1,var2
Hi Robert -
On 8/1/11 8:40 AM, Robert Mann wrote:
Hi all, the former thread on the subject got bugged with other
considerations, and I'd like to share results of my tests and check it out,
so that we can have a clear picture of what we can expect from these stacks.
This is the very simple test
On 8/1/11 10:40 AM, Robert Mann wrote:
This is the very simple test I made :: made a simple "teststack.livecode" in
the IDE : it contains 3 cards and 3 fields, and a few test functions.
Dropped it in a test folder on my on-rev account, and added an index.lc file
at the same level.
problems ::
t;
> -- YES, adressing fields works, SO LONG the name of stack is precised.
>
> put ""
>put "6) TER same query but from a function in the stack, without
> stackname"
>put ""
>put test2() -- simple
tent
of a field without the stackname
put ""
-- NO, adressing fields works, ONLY if the name of stack is precised.
-- CSQ :: handlers and functions have to be written specifically for the
server, with that limitation in mind.
-- go to card 1 of this sta
that cards and fields are not recognized,
is that the general case?
-> Does go stack work elsewhere and improves accessibility to cards and
fields?
Thanks all,
Robert
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/server-using-STACKS-within-ON-REV-tp3709738
20 matches
Mail list logo
