e-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Profox
Sent: 13 November 2008 15:31
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: RE: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
Ok Ted
Now diversified from the original remark I made which I still think was
correct, but this is of interest t
hough they
compile, can be easily decompiled. Is this not the case ?
Al
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted Roche
Sent: 13 November 2008 17:22
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
On 11/13/08, Profox &l
On 11/13/08, Profox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And web app's are secure why ? or was that a joke too :)
"Security" isn't a feature or a checkbox that's on or off. It's a
process. And there's lots of ways to screw it up on all kinds of
installations.
There's "secure against code theft" and ther
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
So, you are saying I would actually use ReFox to Encrypt the APP file
before distributing it to the clients? And, this is how we would stop
people from looking at our code? I know about ReFox, and I have used it
in the past
Foxpro itself already locks the exe. It is in fact refox that breaks in and
then offers a second lock to prevent itself from breaking in. problem is
there is, I seem to remember a simple change of one hex code that will make
that useless as well. So its not as simple as you make out.
And web app's
ROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
>
>
> On 11/13/08, Profox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It has been said in the past that it is also breakable. So really your
> > making a lot of work for yourselves without much gain.
>
> Th
On 11/13/08, Profox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has been said in the past that it is also breakable. So really your
> making a lot of work for yourselves without much gain.
There is not a lock manufactured that's not breakable. You still lock
your house when you leave, even though picking a h
: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
So, you are saying I would actually use ReFox to Encrypt the APP file
before distributing it to the clients? And, this is how we would stop
people from looking at our code? I know about ReFox, and I have used it
in the past (although not for this purpose of
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
So, you are saying I would actually use ReFox to Encrypt the APP file
before distributing it to the clients? And, this is how we would stop
people from looking at our code? I know about ReFox, and I have used it
in the past (although not for
So, you are saying I would actually use ReFox to Encrypt the APP file
before distributing it to the clients? And, this is how we would stop
people from looking at our code? I know about ReFox, and I have used it
in the past (although not for this purpose of encrypting) - and I think
they even have
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Kurt Wendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henry - there is still the downside to the APP's idea, which is that the
> code is still too easily accessible by clients - unlike a compiled EXE
> or DLL.
What? your call for OrderEntry.app
t
Sent: 2008-11-12 2:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
Henry - there is still the downside to the APP's idea, which is that the
code is still too easily accessible by clients - unlike a compiled EXE
or DLL.
Thanks,
-K-
-Original Messa
ember 10, 2008 11:44 AM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: RE: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
Hi Kurt,
I don't see why you wouldn't split into several APPs called from one
central EXE. No FLL or DLL required for splitting. Certainly no regist
-
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter Cushing
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 11:01 AM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
Kurt Wendt wrote:
> Hello there folks,
>
>
> So - I am turning to
L PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Cully
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 10:45 AM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Splitting of Distributable VFP System
I've worked on a system where the main EXE was quite small, and called
other "modules" as either APPS or as EXEs. It worked very well.
Michael,
Thanks for your input. Sorry for the delay in response. This idea of
splitting the EXE and such, it's a completely side project - and I can
only take time to address it if I don't have other specific programming
tasks or meetings. Therefore the late response.
So, onwards...
-Origina
Hi Kurt,
I don't see why you wouldn't split into several APPs called from one central
EXE. No FLL or DLL required for splitting. Certainly no registry stuff either.
The one challenge I've had with splitting is to be careful with your calls so
the project manager does not end up pulling every co
Kurt Wendt wrote:
> Hello there folks,
>
>
> So - I am turning to this mailing list in hopes of getting ideas
> for a possible solution!
>
>
Hi Kurt,
Welcome to the list. Hope it proves useful to you.
There have been quite a few posts in the past from people who use a
"loader" exe
I've worked on a system where the main EXE was quite small, and called
other "modules" as either APPS or as EXEs. It worked very well.
The main EXE would inspect the sub APPS and turn on menu options once
the app was available and the correct version.
-Kevin
CULLY Technologies, LLC
Kurt Wendt
Hi
Try Refox XI+ (www.refox.net) - it has compression inbuilt - not only does
it brand the exe but also reduces the size thereof - in my case a 20.8 MB
exe became 1.95 MB ( 93.75 % size reduction) - of course compression
percentage may vary for you - Note: the website says that the new exe should
To be honest, I would leave the development as it is unless the EXE is
excruciatingly slow to start. With fast networks and fast servers, I wouldn't
think that would be that big of a deal. I'm not sure what cutting it up buys
you because you still have to kick off the people who are in that pa
21 matches
Mail list logo
