Compiling
in [TCL]
|
From: Donal K. Fellows on 3 Mar 2010 08:40 On 3 Mar, 08:24, MSEdit <mse...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > How does the choice by a user stop you using starkits ? > > A starkit is just a "zipped" archive of a filesystem, it could contain > several different copies of a proc which are used depending on what > the user does. (Not actually zipped, but the concept is equivalent.) > On the Wiki someone has a starkit that autoconfigures its contents > over the internet depending on what options the user has used (a sort > of prefetch proc cache) which guarantees that the user always has the > latest version of the procs. I've heard of people providing web-forms which build starkits on the fly. The user has the choice of what goes in, but still can't poke their fingers in the gears easily. Donal.
From: drscrypt on 3 Mar 2010 10:51 MSEdit wrote: > How does the choice by a user stop you using starkits ? .... > People have even used sqlite as a back end to store the procs used in > the application, and use 'unknown' to fetch them out. Why do you assume I am not doing something similar? > TCL is limited only by your imagination. Why do you limit your imagination by focusing only on starkits? I think direct (or any) access to compiled versions of scripts or proc's would be a tremendous opportunity for imagining new ways of deploying tcl. It is something that even the starkits and starpacks could benefit from - as it is complementary. The bottom line is there is no (easy) access to compiled forms. There is only one tool by AS and it has a different license than Tcl - which is fine. DrS
From: MSEdit on 3 Mar 2010 12:28 On Mar 3, 4:51 pm, drscr...(a)gmail.com wrote: > Why do you assume I am not doing something similar? I do not assume anything, YOU said that starkits/pack were not suitable, so I replied asking why ? > Why do you limit your imagination by focusing only on starkits? I think > direct (or any) access to compiled versions of scripts or proc's would > be a tremendous opportunity for imagining new ways of deploying tcl. It > is something that even the starkits and starpacks could benefit from - > as it is complementary. I do not focus on starkits, I spoke about net delivery and SQLITE. > The bottom line is there is no (easy) access to compiled forms. There > is only one tool by AS and it has a different license than Tcl - which > is fine. The main reason to only deliver 'compiled' code (TCL is not compiled) is to protect your code source from theft not accidental editing. The AS tools provide one solution developed by them so a different licence is OK. As indicated by denis there are others easily accessible. I imagine the reason that there exists no 'standard' tool is that as usual no one has sat down to produce it, remember TCL is almost entirely volunteer produced. Martyn
From: Patrick on 5 Mar 2010 17:23
I think the ideal situation for me would be to somehow disable the sdx unwrap command within a starpack, only allowing the starpack to be wrapped, not unwrapped making it one way only. Maybe an option would be an option in the sdx wrap command that would tell it this starpack is a one way only wrap. I know this is not possible now and don't know how difficult it would be. I it wouldn't be ideal but it would certainly provide an extra layer of protection. If anyone has any suggestions on how it could work I might take a crack at it. |