Not barking up the wrong tree at all, with multi-stack apps very much in the
wind…a subject of interest indeed. Agreed with Igor, (ala bug 10275_) not
having and a RCS for the binary stacks themselves is a nuisance. But your 5
liner doesn't solve that either.
But how does creating a stack and setting it's script to a text file different
from adding a stack to your framework and then setting the behavior of that
stack to the text only script?
Or put another way, what advantage would it have over the behavior of the
stack? And since your newly created stack has no controls, those would all
need to be created by script and this is exactly what LiveCode provides: WSIWG
layout environment (albeit needs a lot of work to get to 2018 standards )
A case can be made for treating the binary stacks as a "view" Typically there
is a split in the team between design and code. This is also happening
universally where designers are doing UI/UX prototypes in InVision Or Zeplin..
(no code) and push these over to the code team.
We have such stacks in the SivaSivaApp. where there is almost no code in the
stack at all. We use "the target" …in the text only behavior stacks… this is
working pretty well as once the eye candy and UX is locked in, we are not
touching that too much, if anyone is, it's usually just one person, so pulling
and pushing the binary from GIT is not that big a deal… conflict wise… of
course if some others on the team *do* want to touch the UI, then it gets messy
BR
On 1/22/18, 10:21 AM, "use-livecode on behalf of Geoff Canyon via use-livecode"
<use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com on behalf of
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
Is there any reason script-only stacks had to be implemented in the engine?
Is there any reason *not* to implement their equivalent in about five lines
of code in the mainstack of a project? i.e.,
on loadTextStack tFilePath
put url ("file:/" & tFilePath) into tStackData
put line 1 of tStackData into tStackName
create invisible stack tStackName
set the script of stack tStackName to line 2 to -1 of tStackData
send "openStack" to stack tStackName
end loadTextStack
This would immediately fix the issue of chained behaviors, and allow for
the incremental implementation of a far richer format for text-based stack
storage, leading to gains in project-definition source control.
Given that Bug 10275 <http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10275> is
over five years and several versions old, am I barking up a tree with this,
or making sense?
with no clue,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
