Re: How is this in the app store

That seems to disallow stacks that go to other stacks in the same app? My app does that :) Gerry On 02/05/2013, at 4:10 PM, Geoff Canyon wrote: > Apps that install or launch other executable code will be rejected ___ use-livecode mailing list use-

Re: How is this in the app store

Sections 2.7 and 2.8: - Apps that download code in any way or form will be rejected - Apps that install or launch other executable code will be rejected Apps like Codea (and presumably this Basic!, but I'm installing it out of curiosity) cannot load code, only export it. On Wed,

Re: matching colors to image colors on iOS

On 02/05/2013, at 3:01 PM, Scott Rossi wrote: > This problem just will not go away. One possible solution is to avoid the > PNG format for your image and use GIF or JPEG if possible. If neither one of > those is an option, but your use is iOS only, try opening the image in > Apple's ColorSyn

Re: matching colors to image colors on iOS

This problem just will not go away.  One possible solution is to avoid the PNG format for your image and use GIF or JPEG if possible.  If neither one of those is an option, but your use is iOS only, try opening the image in Apple's ColorSync Utility, assign the image a Generic RGB profile and sa

Re: How is this in the app store

On 5/1/13 9:19 PM, Peter W A Wood wrote: On 2 May 2013, at 00:39, J. Landman Gay wrote: I thought the "no executable code" rule was only for iOS? I don't think that there is a "no executable code" rule on iOS but there are restrictions on what the code can do. You can buy a basic interpreter

Re: matching colors to image colors on iOS

Yes I am but screenGamma is documented as desktop only... is that wrong? On 02/05/2013, at 2:39 PM, Terry Judd wrote: > Monte - if you're working with PNG images have you tried fiddling around with > the screenGamma property? -- Monte Goulding M E R Goulding - software development services me

Re: matching colors to image colors on iOS

Monte - if you're working with PNG images have you tried fiddling around with the screenGamma property? Terry... On 02/05/2013, at 02:27 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > I've got a background graphics I'm trying to match to the background color of > an image and it looks perfect on the desktop but

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 5/1/13 6:24 PM, Timothy Miller wrote: On May 1, 2013, at 3:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community version. If it was, it would be worthless; anyone could read

matching colors to image colors on iOS

I've got a background graphics I'm trying to match to the background color of an image and it looks perfect on the desktop but when run in the simulator the image is quite a bit lighter. Is there any Scott Rossi style trick... Tried setting the paintCompression to png to see if that made any di

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Fabian Rodriguez wrote: > > On 2013-05-01 18:14, J. Landman Gay wrote: >> Security can't be in the community version. If it was, it would be >> worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it to unlock >> protected stacks made with the commercial version. Code

Re: How is this in the app store

On 2 May 2013, at 00:39, J. Landman Gay wrote: > I thought the "no executable code" rule was only for iOS? I don't think that there is a "no executable code" rule on iOS but there are restrictions on what the code can do. You can buy a basic interpreter for iOS through iTunes - https://itunes.a

Re: How is this in the app store

On 02/05/2013, at 9:05 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote: > No code is a dealbreaker, obviously, but still, this is pretty magical tech. I haven't signed up or used the app, but from the intro video it looks like its building an html5-based app. It did not seem to be very innovative, as there are even on

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

stephen barncard writes: > > Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are > there script limits in the Community edition? No. There are no script limits and the limits on the number of frontscripts etc have also been removed. -- Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Timothy Miller wrote: > I'm not a developer. Is the LC business model is moving away from DIY > users like me? Very much the opposite: the Community Edition finally brings all the benefits of a mature, robust xTalk to the masses, allowing the entire world to enjoy the language and its object

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 4:39 PM, stephen barncard wrote: > Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are > there script limits in the Community edition? I have no idea. Don't even know what a script limit is. Feel better now? TM

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 4:25 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > In terms of capabilities, nothing's changed. > > But yes, the pricing for the Commercial Edition has changed. > > Most developers were coding for multiple platforms, and by the time you add > up all the platforms from their formerly-complex pr

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Well, here's another smart-aleck question while I'm feeling randy. Are there script limits in the Community edition? sqb Stephen Barncard San Francisco Ca. USA more about sqb ___ use-livecode mailing list

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Timothy Miller wrote: > I have paid $50 to $100, give or take, for several major upgrades > to LiveCode, and Runtime Revolution before that, and Revolution Media > before that, always for the Macintosh-only version. > > I was not offered an upgrade to the commercial version. I was > notified auto

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 3:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it > was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community version. > If it was, it would be worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it > to unlo

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 02/05/2013, at 8:46 AM, "J. Landman Gay" wrote: > US government restrictions require that certain types of data be secured. (I > know what Timothy's stack is about.) So? That doesn't mean the stack needs to be password protected. Just the data encrypted. Most data isn't even protected by t

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 2:57 PM, stephen barncard wrote: > If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You > don't trust yourself? Nobody likes a smart aleck. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please vis

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 3:14 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it > was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community version. > If it was, it would be worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it > to unlo

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Timothy Miller wrote: >> Is LiveCode turning its back on users like me? > > Not at all. > > All previous versions of LiveCode were commercial versions, and all those > features and more are available in v6.0 of the Commercial Edition. Nothing

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2013-05-01 18:14, J. Landman Gay wrote: > Security can't be in the community version. If it was, it would be > worthless; anyone could read the algorithm and use it to unlock > protected stacks made with the commercial version. Code protection > w

Re: How is this in the app store

setting aside the question of code, it's not quite what you're saying, and it doesn't work the way rev does. 1. I installed their player app on my iPhone and hooked it up with my account on their site. 2. On my mac, in a web browser on their site, I created a new project. 3. Specified that it was

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 5/1/13 5:39 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: On 02/05/2013, at 7:57 AM, stephen barncard wrote: If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You don't trust yourself? That was going to be my question. The only thing I can think of is for using it as some kind of secur

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 02/05/2013, at 7:57 AM, stephen barncard wrote: > If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You > don't trust yourself? That was going to be my question. The only thing I can think of is for using it as some kind of security feature for data which it's not des

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

Timothy Miller wrote: > Is LiveCode turning its back on users like me? Not at all. All previous versions of LiveCode were commercial versions, and all those features and more are available in v6.0 of the Commercial Edition. Nothing's changed there. The Community Edition is what's new, a ver

Valentina Studio, Valentina Reports & Valentina ADK for LiveCode Upgraded to 5.2

Hello all, The short form is that we've updated all products with some great new features. Don't forget that Valentina Studio is FREE, and now handles MariaDB (from the creator of MySQL), MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite and Valentina, and it can now dump in JSON format. Valentina Studio is available fo

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: > Another thought, (again 98% sure this isn't the issue but..) If the > standalone builder picks and chooses db support based on code it sees in > the stack, and if you are using a splash stack, or your db code is in a > substack/external stack,

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On 5/1/13 4:55 PM, Timothy Miller wrote: Is LiveCode turning its back on users like me? Will I regret my modest contribution to the kickstarter fund? They've been pretty up-front about the omission of the security module, it was in the Kickstarter materials. Security can't be in the community

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: > Also, if its a splashstack type with a separate stack file the separate > file could be opened in the ide. > Right, forgot about that Pete lcSQL Software ___ use-livecode mail

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > Yes, but if I send it out without the password protection, anyone could > open it with the IDE, couldn't they? > I don't think so - standalones are the same as any other executables, they have compiled code in them, not scripts. Anyway, best

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

Also, if its a splashstack type with a separate stack file the separate file could be opened in the ide. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:00 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 5/1/13 4:02 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: >> >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

On 5/1/13 4:02 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: Maybe I'm misunderstanding the requirement here, but aren't you sending this application out as a standalone? If so the issue of password protecting the scripts is moot since it only applies to running

Re: Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

If it's for your own use, why do you need to protect you stacks at all? You don't trust yourself? On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Timothy Miller < gand...@doctortimothymiller.com> wrote: > On May 1, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: > > > If its 6.0.1 commercial you should be able to. But of

Password protection in non-commercial 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: > If its 6.0.1 commercial you should be able to. But of course if its 6.0.1 > commercial it should have been able to open it to begin with. If its the > community version the answer would be no, that part of things has been > removed. Not commercial

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

Dr. Hawkins writes: > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > > > Ah. In that case, LC 5.5.4 is your friend. > > But you knew that already. > > > > But this *is* 5.5.4 that can't open a postgres database from a standalone! > > It doesn't have a problem with sqlite, though, and

Re: Stack won't open in 6.0.1

If its 6.0.1 commercial you should be able to. But of course if its 6.0.1 commercial it should have been able to open it to begin with. If its the community version the answer would be no, that part of things has been removed. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Timothy Miller < gand...@doctortimothy

Re: Stack won't open in 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: > Wondering if your dictionary is having issues. Found this entry in mine. > > *password* > > ** > > *Type: *property > > > *Syntax: * > > set the password of *stack *to {*passwordString *| empty} Thank you Mike. > set the password of this st

Re: How is this in the app store

On 5/1/13 3:34 PM, Geoff Canyon wrote: This is an iOS tool. It makes it *totally* simple. I literally went to their web site, initiated an app, created a few screens with minor interaction, installed their runtime iOS app, and was reviewing my app on my iPhone two minutes later (had to sign up by

Re: Stack won't open in 6.0.1

On May 1, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Mike Bonner wrote: > Wondering if your dictionary is having issues. Found this entry in mine. > > *password* > > ** > > *Type: *property > > > *Syntax: * > > set the password of *stack *to {*passwordString *| empty} Thank you Mike. > set the password of this st

Re: Stack won't open in 6.0.1

Wondering if your dictionary is having issues. Found this entry in mine. *password* ** *Type: *property *Syntax: * set the password of *stack *to {*passwordString *| empty} Hopefully that will do the trick. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Timothy Miller < gand...@doctortimothymiller.com>

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

Another thought, (again 98% sure this isn't the issue but..) If the standalone builder picks and chooses db support based on code it sees in the stack, and if you are using a splash stack, or your db code is in a substack/external stack, is it possible that the standalone builder is just not inclu

Stack won't open in 6.0.1

My stack won't open in 6.0.1. It's fine in 5.5.4. The stack is password protected, but not because of a substack like AE. It's just password protected. I thought of opening the stack in 5.5.4, to turn off the password protection. I kludged that by trial and error, by trying to look at a script,

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

Hmm, based on the error you posted i'm sure this isn't the issue, but.. you aren't trying to open the postgres database in preopenstack are you? If so, externals loading may not yet be complete. On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Peter Haworth

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the requirement here, but aren't you sending > this application out as a standalone? If so the issue of password > protecting the scripts is moot since it only applies to running stacks in > the IDE. > Yes, but if

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Ah. In that case, LC 5.5.4 is your friend. > But you knew that already. > But this *is* 5.5.4 that can't open a postgres database from a standalone! It doesn't have a problem with sqlite, though, and the IDE (both 6.x and 5.5.4) can open post

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

Dr Hawkins, Maybe I'm misunderstanding the requirement here, but aren't you sending this application out as a standalone? If so the issue of password protecting the scripts is moot since it only applies to running stacks in the IDE. Doesn't help with your revdatabaseopen problem though. Pete lcS

Re: How is this in the app store

This is an iOS tool. It makes it *totally* simple. I literally went to their web site, initiated an app, created a few screens with minor interaction, installed their runtime iOS app, and was reviewing my app on my iPhone two minutes later (had to sign up by email etc.) But I think I answered my qu

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

Richard- > That is *exactly* what I need to do Ah. In that case, LC 5.5.4 is your friend. But you knew that already. -- Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscr

Re: Hacking the 'Tools' stack

Mike Bonner writes: > My guess would be that the sheer volume of changes in the up and coming > would make it wasted effort. However, rather than create an adjusted tools > stack why not just make your own custom tools stack with presets? (Like > droptools, powertools..) Case in point: when the

Re: Education version is what with the Open Source option now

Mark, The only reason to get the Commercial version of LC would be to password protect your stack/code or, if you intend on submitting an iOS app to Apple's App Store. Desktop and server use, Android apps or internal distribution are all covered by the Community version of LC's license. At

Re: Education version is what with the Open Source option now

Mark, The only reason to get the Commercial version of LC would be to password protect your stack/code or, if you intend on submitting an iOS app to Apple's App Store. Desktop and server use, Android apps or internal distribution are all covered by the Community version of LC's license. At le

Education version is what with the Open Source option now

Hi My Educational version of LiveCode is due for an annual renewal, but what does that mean for the new license options. In the past, Ed folks could not release a commercial product. Is there any value or sense to an Ed version moving forward with LiveCode. I assume not. Mark Rauterkus

Re: How is this in the app store

On 5/1/13 5:27 AM, Geoff Canyon wrote: http://apparchitect.com/ I would have bet on Apple rejecting this since it's obviously taking in and executing code. Has the policy changed, or did these guys get clever somehow? I thought the "no executable code" rule was only for iOS? -- Jacqueline Land

Re: revOpenDatabase acting differently in IDE and standalone

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > Well, as has been mentioned before, you don't need to encrypt them > until you're ready to push them out into the wild. That is *exactly* what I need to do, and what I was able to do when using sqlite instead of postcript. These are demo an

Re: Script editors

I think be good to see all scripts at once but not in one long document but rather in a tree which would show the context. The new project browser shows the stack structure in a tree format. You can click on the script button in the project browse and open the scripts in the tabbed script brows

Re: Hacking the 'Tools' stack

My guess would be that the sheer volume of changes in the up and coming would make it wasted effort. However, rather than create an adjusted tools stack why not just make your own custom tools stack with presets? (Like droptools, powertools..) On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Richmond wrote: > A

How is this in the app store

http://apparchitect.com/ I would have bet on Apple rejecting this since it's obviously taking in and executing code. Has the policy changed, or did these guys get clever somehow? gc ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit

Re: Script editors

On 01/05/2013, at 7:32 PM, Richmond wrote: > Of course () it might be that I'm even more goofy that I thought I was, > and have missed some aspect of LC that allows one to view the whole code > of one's stack all at once; but I doubt it. Have you seen the seen Edit > Find and Replace??? You

Script editors

About 9 years ago I took a Master's degree in something that was described as "Computers and IT", and when I enrolled I was informed that while the college used only Windows 2000, all the programming techniques we learnt would be valid cross-platform. I later found out that out of 5 "programming"

Hacking the 'Tools' stack

About 8-9 years ago I hacked the version 2.0 revTools stack to produce a lateral toolbar with a large number of presets, quite a few people used it, especially for teaching purposes, and am wondering about doing that again. I remember getting a bit cheesed-off when between version 2.0.1 and 2.6