Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Alpha Test - A standalone windows executable

Expand Messages
  • azynheira
    Hi Jon, Just some thoughts on the Win32 version: 1) I maybe trying to be perfectionist, but do you think that it could also be a good approach to put the bfs
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jon,
      Just some thoughts on the Win32 version:
      1) I maybe trying to be perfectionist, but do you think that it could also be a good approach to put the bfs into a resource reference. This way one could replace it as wish.

      2) Another approach would be to append the bfs to the end of the executable and at run time the executable would search for the bfs at as trailing information append to the end of the exe file and load it.
      This way it would also allow some flexible plug&play bfs. If nothing was found, then it would be regular stripped me32.exe.

      What do you think about this?

      Regards,
      Pedro



      --- In jasspa@yahoogroups.com, Jon Green <jon@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > On Mon 02/11/09 11:59 AM , "azynheira" pedro.gomes@... sent:
      > > Hi Jon,
      > > Been playing with it! Looks nice .... :P
      > >
      > > Two points worth discussing:
      > > 1) I would see this stuff completely integrated into the
      > > "regular" build environment (I believe it's ongoing from the code
      > > I saw).
      >
      > It is just a prototype at the moment - the source is not even archived.
      > There are makefiles updated for Linux/Freebsd/Darwin etc. Build as:
      >
      > build -t scw
      > build -t sc
      >
      > I did provide the source bundle.
      >
      > > 2) Would be nice to have a system wide variable or a bit in the $system
      > > variable (Readonly) to indicate that the executable being ran is a
      > > standalone binary.
      > > Comments appreciated...
      >
      > I think that you should be able to do a @stat command on "bfs://" to test if it is present.
      > Not tried this or even considered yet - possibly this will not work - that is why it is alpha.
      >
      > Regards
      > Jon.
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Regards,
      > > Pedro
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In jasspa
      > > @yahoogroups.com, Jon Green <jon@> wrote:>
      > > > azynheira wrote:
      > > > > Hi Jon
      > > > > Good work!
      > > > >
      > > > > I had used standalone application by using
      > > StartKits in Tcl and this I would believe its the same idea
      > > concept?> >
      > > > > I makes ME (even) more appealing, just one
      > > .exe file and your private stuff and voila :-)> >
      > > > > Do you have this concept working for Linux
      > > as well ?> >
      > > >
      > > > There are some Linux versions amongst others
      > > here:>
      > > >
      > > http://www.jasspa.com/development/me-standalone/>
      > > > Regards
      > > > Jon
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > __________________________________________________________________________
      > > This is an unmoderated list, but new members are moderated to ensure that
      > > there are no spam users. JASSPA is not responsible for the content of any material posted to this list.
      > >
      > > To un-subscribe, send a mail message to
      > >
      > > jasspa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > or visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jasspa andmodify your account settings manually.
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > > Individual Email | Traditional
      > >
      > > jasspa-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > ---- Message sent via KC WebMail - http://webmail.mistral.net/
      >
    • Jon Green
      ... Well done Pedro - top marks; this is exactly what we should do. This means that we do not need to do a build to change the macros and any Joe can easily
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        azynheira wrote:
        > Hi Jon, Just some thoughts on the Win32 version: 1) I maybe trying to be
        > perfectionist, but do you think that it could also be a good approach to put
        > the bfs into a resource reference. This way one could replace it as wish.
        >
        > 2) Another approach would be to append the bfs to the end of the executable
        > and at run time the executable would search for the bfs at as trailing
        > information append to the end of the exe file and load it. This way it would
        > also allow some flexible plug&play bfs. If nothing was found, then it would
        > be regular stripped me32.exe.
        >

        Well done Pedro - top marks; this is exactly what we should do.

        This means that we do not need to do a build to change the macros and any Joe
        can easily customize. Also the executable is standard, if there is anything on
        the end then you can run it, if it is missing then run as normal. Also the
        stuff on the end can be huge i.e. spelling dictionaries, the works! This also
        satisfies Bryan's requirements of being able to load up with his own private files.

        From what I have at the moment to this is just a little step - a small tweak
        to the container format will mean I can access it from the bottom of the file
        to find the root node entry point and then I have the root directory.

        Well done - exactly why I alpha'ed it and what I should have thought of - guess
        I was not thinking that far ahead just to proof of concept.

        Thanks, I will pursue this path as the next revision.

        Regards
        Jon

        > What do you think about this?
        >
        > Regards, Pedro
        >
        >
      • azynheira
        Hi Jon, Nice ! :P One thing I forgot to refer yesterday was that it would be nice that the container is protected against corruption by appending to the
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Jon,
          Nice ! :P

          One thing I forgot to refer yesterday was that it would be nice that the container is protected against corruption by appending to the beginning headers of the container some md5sum of the whole "cake", that would then be checked at startup just to be sure that we dont have "bad" contents inside.

          Just some more cents ... :-)

          Pedro

          --- In jasspa@yahoogroups.com, Jon Green <jon@...> wrote:
          >
          > azynheira wrote:
          > > Hi Jon, Just some thoughts on the Win32 version: 1) I maybe trying to be
          > > perfectionist, but do you think that it could also be a good approach to put
          > > the bfs into a resource reference. This way one could replace it as wish.
          > >
          > > 2) Another approach would be to append the bfs to the end of the executable
          > > and at run time the executable would search for the bfs at as trailing
          > > information append to the end of the exe file and load it. This way it would
          > > also allow some flexible plug&play bfs. If nothing was found, then it would
          > > be regular stripped me32.exe.
          > >
          >
          > Well done Pedro - top marks; this is exactly what we should do.
          >
          > This means that we do not need to do a build to change the macros and any Joe
          > can easily customize. Also the executable is standard, if there is anything on
          > the end then you can run it, if it is missing then run as normal. Also the
          > stuff on the end can be huge i.e. spelling dictionaries, the works! This also
          > satisfies Bryan's requirements of being able to load up with his own private files.
          >
          > From what I have at the moment to this is just a little step - a small tweak
          > to the container format will mean I can access it from the bottom of the file
          > to find the root node entry point and then I have the root directory.
          >
          > Well done - exactly why I alpha'ed it and what I should have thought of - guess
          > I was not thinking that far ahead just to proof of concept.
          >
          > Thanks, I will pursue this path as the next revision.
          >
          > Regards
          > Jon
          >
          > > What do you think about this?
          > >
          > > Regards, Pedro
          > >
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.