Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I'm just working on the next issue of Hinduism Today and checking articles in and out of version control system dedicated to Indesign that I built... we have been using it for 8 years, team loves it..super, super easy, never lost a single file... having finally bailed on Adobe's ridiculously com

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 04/04/2016 01:59 PM, Andre Garzia wrote: HAP stands for Himalayan Academy Publication (http://himalayanacademy.com/). Where we use LC everyday Sometimes twice a day, I'll bet. -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com ___ use-livecode mailing li

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Hey Richard, I miss you and the gang everyday! I am trying to be more present and want to learn all the goodies from LC8. HAP stands for Himalayan Academy Publication (http://himalayanacademy.com/). Where we use LC everyday :-D On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Andre

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Andre Garzia wrote: > Hey Friends, > > Long time no see! Loved this thread! In the spirit of working in > the open and sharing unfinished (and potentially broken) stuff, > I'd welcome you all to take a look into some documentation we're > putting into place at: > > https://bitbucket.org/hapdeve

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Hey Friends, Long time no see! Loved this thread! In the spirit of working in the open and sharing unfinished (and potentially broken) stuff, I'd welcome you all to take a look into some documentation we're putting into place at: https://bitbucket.org/hapdevelopers/devdocs/wiki/Home We welcom

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

localPath() & "main-stack-scripts/generic-mobile-functions_behavior.livecode" is not a valid stack reference - it's just a path. Try: on assignBehaviors set the behavior of stack "siva-portal-links_behavior" to the long id of stack (localPath() & "main-stack-scripts/generic-mobile-functions_behav

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

But FWIW.. this does not work on assignBehaviors set the behavior of stack "siva-portal-links_behavior" to (localPath() & "main-stack-scripts/generic-mobile-functions_behavior.livecode") end assignBehaviors OTOH: if you assign the behavior via the inspector to the script-only stack it *does*

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Interesting caveat here. Could be "Major" You can edit the script as you say, and save But if you go to the stack inspector for the script only stack and assign a behavior...ala class, super class it will begin to work in this session...So you think "aha. how cool, cascading hierarchy..." So t

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 4/3/2016 7:31 AM, Kay C Lan wrote: PS Unfortunately if you click on the 'button' link against Associations it doesn't take you back to the relevant button page with all it's Associations. Hopefully they are working on that. Works okay here in dp16. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | ja

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Yeah, not my favorite either. Whilst I don't wish to kerb anyone's enthusiasm to contribute to Max's or anyone else's Wiki, I do have two concerns. Clearly, the spare time of this Community to contribute to any community effort (be it bug r

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 4/3/2016 12:37 AM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: If setting the stack files and opening them in the preopenhandler works, that's what I'll do, if the only certain way to save script only stacks is by clicking on the contextual menu and explicitely choosing "Save" (in the AB and PB) that's

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Bill Prothero wrote: > I wonder how hard it would be to port max's Wikia wiki to a less > commercial host. I am skeptical of those free sites dedicated to > scraping user information for data mining purposes. Yeah, not my favorite either. The one advantage is the price, but as they say, you ge

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > ... if the only certain way to save script only stacks is by clicking > on the contextual menu and explicitely choosing "Save" (in the AB > and PB) that's what I'll do. ...or typing Cmd-S while in the Script Editor, or choosing File->Save from the main menu

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I wonder how hard it would be to port max's Wikia wiki to a less commercial host. I am skeptical of those free sites dedicated to scraping user information for data mining purposes. Livecode could support it as part of their resources, as an experiment to see how it develops? Bill William Pro

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I think I'm too bitten (happily so) now with the class/super/class behaviors hierarchy ( have already set the behavior of a behavior, fantastic!) In fact it's hard to stop envisioning all the ways to use this feature, and I don't want the bound up in a single binary file object... as the goal

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > Small addendum, now that I'm actually using them. Today, though I > had added them as stack files, my three external stack file > behaviors were still not in the message path. That's contrary to my own experience, which I'd tested again to make double-sure ju

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

  Small addendum, now that I'm actually using them. Today, though I had added them as stack files, my three external stack file behaviors were still not in the message path. But, now, having added them it the stack files.. you can open them without declaring a path. command initializeInterf

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami > Kay C Lan wrote: >> >> IMO the ideal solution would be the Dictionary act like a Wiki >> Editor. > > I had a parallel thought this morning. Many languages have their > "wiki space" > > Given the enormity of the task of turning the dictionary into > something like that

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Kay C Lan wrote: IMO the ideal solution would be the Dictionary act like a Wiki Editor. I had a parallel thought this morning. Many languages have their "wiki space" Given the enormity of the task of turning the dictionary into something like that...don't bother... let it be what it is. Just s

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Kay C Lan wrote: And now stepping on very thin ice I will go against the grain of 'User Notes' as previously implemented and currently re-suggested. Again, as an interim step I see them as very useful for capturing nuggets of information. The great thing about them is, as stated by Jacque, you do

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > How do we do that. Via Git hub? we pull the entry edit and then push back > with changes? > Those who want to contribute will find Ali's guide essential: https://github.com/livecode/livecode/blob/community-docs/docs/contributing

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

How do we do that. Via Git hub? we pull the entry edit and then push back with changes? The user notes option is still not available. So, yes Jacque is right, but we can do it On April 1, 2016 at 4:51:23 AM, Richard Gaskin (ambassa...@fourthworld.com) wrote:

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Mark wrote: > > In addition, the Project Browser that I'm usually kicking has a very > nice feature in that if there is a behavior object associated with a > stack or control you will see that indicated to the left of the script > lines, and it also shows the number of lines in the behavior scr

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

William Prothero wrote: > I think the salient points are the various ways of getting behaviors > to instantiate properly. There have been a number of ideas that all > seem to work. So what I suggest, is that a brief description of each > strategy (1-2 sentences) and a bit of sample code (where app

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Richard and Matt: I think the salient points are the various ways of getting behaviors to instantiate properly. There have been a number of ideas that all seem to work. So what I suggest, is that a brief description of each strategy (1-2 sentences) and a bit of sample code (where appropriate) li

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Matt Maier wrote: I never suggested you write it. The word "you" threw me off. Thanks for the clarification. I objected to you advising the mailing list not to include this discussion in the Dictionary because it would start down a slippery slope towards "too big." This discussion is many

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I never suggested you write it. I objected to you advising the mailing list not to include this discussion in the Dictionary because it would start down a slippery slope towards "too big." On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Kay C Lan wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:43

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

J. Landman Gay wrote: > I think a lot of the issues being discussed here could be easily > solved if the user notes feature was reimplemented. Agreed. That's been discussed here before, but it seems no one had mentioned it in a bug report where it could become actionable - Mark Waddingham fin

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Well said Jacque! (Like I'm surprised) Phil Davis On 4/1/16 9:10 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote: I think a lot of the issues being discussed here could be easily solved if the user notes feature was reimplemented. I found those very helpful. And there are many advantages: users can contribute quick

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

lcStackbrowser shows an icon for the object's script and one icon for each of its behavior scripts. Clicking on any of them opens the appropriate script. In addition, the tooltip for an object lists how many lines are in its script, the objects in its behavior chain and how many lines are in each

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I think a lot of the issues being discussed here could be easily solved if the user notes feature was reimplemented. I found those very helpful. And there are many advantages: users can contribute quickly, no one needs to learn a foreign tracking system, users are more likely to jot down concept

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 04/01/2016 07:34 AM, Ali Lloyd wrote: It's a pain to open the object inspector and copy the behavior reference then use the message box to to "open script of…" This is no longer necessary in the latest DPs of 8.0 - the behavior property in the property inspector has an 'edit script' button.

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Kay C Lan wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> >> That's precisely why I advocate maintaining the Dictionary as >> an essential reference (as in "essence"); it should be easy >> to link to relevant tutorials and guides for more complete >> discussion when desired. >>

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

> It's a pain to open the object inspector and copy the behavior reference > then use the message box to to "open script of…" This is no longer necessary in the latest DPs of 8.0 - the behavior property in the property inspector has an 'edit script' button. On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:21 PM Peter M.

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Re this discussion on behaviors and chained behaviors, would there be any use for a new engine-based property like "the effective scripts of " that would return the script of the object and all the behavior scripts in its chain? Perhaps as an array, with the control references as keys? I don't u

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > That's precisely why I advocate maintaining the Dictionary as an essential > reference (as in "essence"); it should be easy to link to relevant tutorials > and guides for more complete discussion when desired. > Could you give me an example

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

James Hale wrote: > I fail to see the inclusion of examples of the syntax to a dictionary > entry as bloat. Excellent. That makes it unanimous, as I've not seen anyone else here argue against having syntax examples in the Dictionary either. In fact, I can't think of any Dictionary entry that

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Matt Maier wrote: You keep citing the theoretically limitless number of contingencies that, if addressed, could bloat the dictionary beyond readability. There's a simple solution to that problem: don't go looking for theoretical problems. Instead, just correct, massage, or add to the dictionary

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I fail to see the inclusion of examples of the syntax to a dictionary entry as bloat. I may be one of only a few but I find many of the dictionary entries opaque to say the least. Ali's example of how one would employ a script only stack as a behavior is a case in point. It immediately makes emp

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

You keep citing the theoretically limitless number of contingencies that, if addressed, could bloat the dictionary beyond readability. There's a simple solution to that problem: don't go looking for theoretical problems. Instead, just correct, massage, or add to the dictionary entry when someone h

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Matt Maier wrote: > I just want to chime in to disagree with the idea that we should leave > useful information out of the Dictionary. When you put it like that it sounds silly indeed. Fortunately I wasn't advocating omitting useful information, just suggesting we may want to maintain an awar

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I just want to chime in to disagree with the idea that we should leave useful information out of the Dictionary. There's no such thing as a document that's too big when we have networks and search. Even if we're forced to browse and read we can just put the information in order of importance so th

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Thanks for the comments. Very interesting. And I guess the big advantage of behaviors over a library is the scope issue. I’ll put this info into my toolchest. Best, Bill > On Mar 31, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Ali Lloyd wrote: > > Or more accurately > on preOpenStack > local tBehaviorLongID > put the

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Or more accurately on preOpenStack local tBehaviorLongID put the long id of stack "" into tBehaviorLongID set the behavior of field "FieldWithBehavior" of me to tBehaviorLongID end preOpenStack On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:31 PM Ali Lloyd wrote: > My solution to this: > > Stack "MyTestStack"

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

My solution to this: Stack "MyTestStack" has a field, which is assigned stack "MyBehaviorStack" as its behavior property. Stack "MyBehaviorStack" is a separate stack file. would be to also include the behavior *setting* in the preOpenStack handler of "MyTestStack". on preOpenStack set the beh

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Bill- So, the “myBehaviorLib” substack could be simply a script only stack that contains some reasonable number of separate behavior type scripts, and once the “start using” is invoked, say on a preopenStack script, all common code for button behaviors becomes a single code element. Inheritan

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

The difference between a library and a behavior is scope: the library is global, while the behavior only affects the objects to which it's assigned. The preloading thang with behaviors is somewhat specific, only coming into play when all three of the following are true: - The behavior scrip

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Richard: Ok, for the sake of argument (and my learning), compare that to: 1. Make new stack and call it “Alt Behavior Playground” 2. Make a new button and enter the script: on mouseDown put the long ID of the target into theTarg doABehavior theTarg end mouseDown 3. Make a substack and

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > I think the idea that you have to open an external behavior stack > *before* you open the main stack that has controls which point to > it as their parent, is totally unintuitive and when a newbie reads > "load, open, put into memory" etc... he/she will always

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 3/31/2016 3:09 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: I think the idea that you have to open an external behavior stack*before* you open the main stack that has controls which point to it as their parent, is totally unintuitive and when a newbie reads "load, open, put into memory" etc... he/sh

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I don't think I'm super smart... or over thinking it I think the idea that you have to open an external behavior stack *before* you open the main stack that has controls which point to it as their parent, is totally unintuitive and when a newbie reads "load, open, put into memory" etc... he/she

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

J. Landman Gay wrote: On 3/31/2016 1:42 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: ergo: merely opening a script-only stack that is applied as a behavior to a control (not global in scope) does*not* place into the msg path. By the time a preOpenStack handler executes, the engine has already loade

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

William Prothero wrote: > Thanks, Richard: > My previous exposure to the behaviors methodology was in Adobe > Director. A behavior was assigned to a particular control, field, > button, whatever, and in its script, it defined a set of properties > that could be set custom for each instantiation.

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > ergo: merely opening a script-only stack that is applied as a > behavior to a control (not global in scope) does *not* place > into the msg path. Respectfully, your recipe would be easier to follow without the steps unrelated to the actions we're exploring (m

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Thanks, Richard: My previous exposure to the behaviors methodology was in Adobe Director. A behavior was assigned to a particular control, field, button, whatever, and in its script, it defined a set of properties that could be set custom for each instantiation. That way, a “set” of graphics for

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 3/31/2016 1:42 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: ergo: merely opening a script-only stack that is applied as a behavior to a control (not global in scope) does*not* place into the msg path. By the time a preOpenStack handler executes, the engine has already loaded the stack into RAM an

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

  Jai Ganesha! I went to bed HST worried I was creating too much churn on this list and here you guys kept spinning a web of silk and gold ideas all night longAwesome... Now have to digest all this. BR: "opening the stack did not work" RG: What happened? Still failing today.. try this uni

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Thanks, Richard, that is a very, very nice intro to behaviors! On 31.03.2016 at 9:52 Uhr -0700 Richard Gaskin apparently wrote: Behaviors are very powerful for all sorts of things, whether you work alone or in a team of twenty. The biggest benefit for teamwork comes from the very separate

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Richard Gaskin wrote > In just 11 steps, each taking only a few seconds, you've just created a > rich hierarchy of custom messaging: > >"A" "B" "C" > \ | / > \ | / > MyClass > | > | > MySuperClass > > > If you wanted the drag b

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

William Prothero wrote: > Reading this kinda makes my head spin. Now I’m thinking it is going > to be a heck of a lot more robust for my situation, as a single > developer, to not use behaviors at all, but to have a single > (possibly script only) substack that holds all of the handlers that I >

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Mark Waddingham wrote: > I still have a difficult time wrapping my head around the syntax for > multiple custom property sets - especially since the introduction of > nested arrays: > > http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6912 > > ;) This reminds me of a hypothesis I have that perhaps you

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Thierry: Thanks! As an afterthought, I should have added an “all of the above” choice because I visit each of those intellectual realms frequently. Best, Bill > On Mar 31, 2016, at 8:46 AM, Thierry Douez wrote: > >> Am I wrong. misguided, foolish, or brilliant? >> > > ​You are brilliant !!! >

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

> Am I wrong. misguided, foolish, or brilliant? > ​You are brilliant !!! Mmm, as long as you don't need behaviors :) Kind regards, Thierry ---​ Thierry Douez - http://sunny-tdz.com sunnYrex - sunnYtext2speech - sunnYperl - sunnYmidi - sunnYmage

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Folks: Reading this kinda makes my head spin. Now I’m thinking it is going to be a heck of a lot more robust for my situation, as a single developer, to not use behaviors at all, but to have a single (possibly script only) substack that holds all of the handlers that I would normally use as beha

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 2016-03-31 17:04, Richard Gaskin wrote: Happy to help. Just paying it forward. You should have seen some of my posts on the MetaCard list circa '98. I was moving from SuperCard, where we only had a single custom property set, and was having a very difficult time wrapping my head around the

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > On March 30, 2016 at 6:17:20 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > >> in brief: >> 1. Open them > > # this did not work for me earlier today What exactly happened? It may be helpful while demystifying this to work with ordinary stack files for your behavior scripts.

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On March 30, 2016 at 6:17:20 PM, Richard Gaskin (ambassa...@fourthworld.com) wrote: Here's my post noting the other two ways (in addition to using the stackFiles property) of loading stacks into memory:

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 3/31/2016 12:44 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote: If a field is editable, a right-click generates editing messages Typo. Should say "left click". Oops. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com ___

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 3/30/2016 9:57 PM, Matt Maier wrote: I just tried reproducing your actions and now I'm confused. All I did was make a new stack, drag a field onto it, then put: on mouseUp put "hello" & cr after me end mouseUp When I left-click, nothing happens, even though I can double click to select words

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: For script-only stack.. what are the other two methods besides adding them as stack files? AFAIK there's nothing about loading stacks that's specific to script-only stacks. Stacks are stacks, binary or script-only we work with them the same. The difference

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

For script-only stack.. what are the other two methods besides adding them as stack files? On March 30, 2016 at 4:59:45 PM, Richard Gaskin (ambassa...@fourthworld.com) wrote: Any of the three methods I mentioned earlier will work. ___

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > Also note that it if you use "open" to open your script only stack > file... it is still not in the message path It doesn't need to be in the message path. It just needs to be in memory. My earlier posts offered three different ways to load a stack into me

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I just tried reproducing your actions and now I'm confused. All I did was make a new stack, drag a field onto it, then put: on mouseUp put "hello" & cr after me end mouseUp When I left-click, nothing happens, even though I can double click to select words and I can left-click-drag to highlight wo

RE: Script Only Stack Architecture

@ Richard: I looked at the bug 8993 . The problem is... what does "loaded" actually mean? After two days of research, study and testing and responses here... I *still* could not figure it out (until now thanks to your tip on stack files) Indeed a serious confusion/conundrum for a new comer.

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > Richard if you are updating the dict entry on this: we need to be > even more clear: > > e.g. if your intent is for the child control(s) to respond to "on > mouseup" this will not work if you do "start using" for your > script-only stack." When you use "start

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Richard if you are updating the dict entry on this: we need to be even more clear: e.g. if your intent is for the child control(s) to respond to "on mouseup" this will not work if you do "start using" for your script-only stack." When you use "start using" the entire main stack file becomes, i

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I recently wrote: NOTE: a long-standing source of confusion and frustration with behaviors is that the object holding the behavior script must be in memory when any stack containing objects subscribed to it is loaded. When behaviors are in the same stack file the engine figures it out on its own

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

On 03/30/2016 03:53 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: 1) create a script only stack. Save to disk and leave open call it "behavior-field-text.livecodescript) 2) create field; set behavior, aha! my new script only stack is available. 3) assign the stack to the field ... 4) lock field, click

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

"start using" puts all handlers in the stack into the message path as front scripts which is why all your mouseUp messages are being caught. If your script-only stack is a separate main stack from your application's main stack, just open the script-only stack in the preOpenxxx handler of your app'

RE: Script Only Stack Architecture

Monte: Thanks for the thoughtful response. For now, even the basics would help... in the dictionary... I had to test this morning to learn things that could all be placed on a single page of documentation 1) create a script only stack. Save to disk and leave open call it "behavior-field-text.

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

> what is the equivalent of > > set the behavior of tNewGroup to the long id of button "Widget" of card > "Behaviors" > > where "the long id of button" points instead to a script only stack? I think it is simply... set the behavior of tNewGroup to stack "myScriptOnlyStack" If you chec

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

> On 30 Mar 2016, at 6:26 AM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami > wrote: > > @ Mark, Monte, Peter (brett) if you are inspired -- a tutorial on > "building an app from scratch, using the script-only modular approach to the > max." as a video tutorial or something would be

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Chipp's MagicCarpet was useful in its day... then came the lock down: no FTP in clear text. That may change soon as I believe we are getting close to solutions for SFTP. There is still a strong use case for passing the baton/binary-stack (ck in, ck out) style collaboration. I really can't see

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

William Prothero wrote: > I put almost all of my code in substacks, but haven’t tried text only > stacks yet. I can’t see having a jillion small text files to keep > track of. But then, a lot of folks seem to love them, so I wonder at > the advantages. Of course, there’s the github thing. That's

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Richard: Some of the items were mentioned in Bramanathaswami’s post. Some, of course, is just taste. I put almost all of my code in substacks, but haven’t tried text only stacks yet. I can’t see having a jillion small text files to keep track of. But then, a lot of folks seem to love them, so I

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

  I'm going blind here, eyes burning with the app contents open to the LC 8 application folder and looking at the 100's of .rev, .livecodescript and .livecode files. So here's a thought experiment and me thinking outloud for this actual project in front of me. Starting at square 1 The scrip

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

William Prothero wrote: Organizing the code in a project is really important and there are lots of ways to go wrong. Can you describe some? While documenting good patterns can be useful, sometimes documenting anti-patterns is just as useful. Several years ago at one of the LC conferences

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

I second this. Organizing the code in a project is really important and there are lots of ways to go wrong. Bill William Prothero http://es.earthednet.org > On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami > wrote: > > Ahh... so code that has object level scope should be e.g. > > "ti

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Ahh... so code that has object level scope should be e.g. "tiny-little-nav-buttons.livecodescript" That is set as the behavior for those buttons? and code that has things like "getLocalAppPath()" should be in " start using stack "coreAppFunctions.livecodescript" Is that what you mean? @ M

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

  On March 28, 2016 at 4:01:47 PM, Matt Maier (bluebac...@gmail.com(mailto:bluebac...@gmail.com)) wrote: > Monte got annoyed that I did something like that instead of setting > behaviors. So it might be better to write behaviors in script-only stacks > and then set them onto the various contro

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Yes, it was the mix of code that should have an object scope and code that was fine to have a application wide scope that I was commenting on Matt. Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Mar 2016, at 2:46 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > Matt Maier wrote: > > > Monte got annoyed that I did something like t

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Matt Maier wrote: > Monte got annoyed that I did something like that instead of setting > behaviors. So it might be better to write behaviors in script-only > stacks and then set them onto the various controls, rather than > managing the controls all the way from the library stack(s). Behaviors

Re: Script Only Stack Architecture

Monte got annoyed that I did something like that instead of setting behaviors. So it might be better to write behaviors in script-only stacks and then set them onto the various controls, rather than managing the controls all the way from the library stack(s). On Mar 28, 2016 18:54, "Sannyasin Brahm