revInterop at Yahoo! Groups

Re: GOOGLE+ invitation

Chuck C. — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:35:14 GMT

I would like an invitation. chazzc@... Thanks, ... From: "noblewb" [noble.w.brown@...] Date: 07/16/2011 07:06 PM To: revInterop@yahoogroups.com

GOOGLE+ invitation

noblewb — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 23:06:08 GMT

if anyone would like a GOOGLE+ invitation - send me your email address and I'll send you a invitation.

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Richard Gaskin — Thu, 05 May 2011 18:46:57 GMT

... Thanks for the follow-up. Given the many benefits of being able to reference images by name in addition to ID, I've submitted a request for this:

rip.livecodejournal.com

Richard Gaskin — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:47:12 GMT

As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, I set up a new sub-domain for livecodejournal.com as a public access mirror for this group:

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

mwieder@... — Thu, 05 May 2011 00:06:03 GMT

On Wed, 04 May 2011 18:52:12 -0500, Ken Ray ... Bummer. Why can't this stuff be easy? Isn't this stuff supposed to be easy? -- Mark

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Ken Ray — Wed, 04 May 2011 23:52:22 GMT

... Yes, that's very similar to when I tested it - when you assign the icon of a button by name, it only uses the name to locate the image and then attaches

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Ken Ray — Wed, 04 May 2011 23:39:37 GMT

... As it turns out, patterns don't work with image names, but only IDs (you get a "pixmap is not an integer" error) and so they don't fix the MC Wraparound

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

mwieder@... — Wed, 04 May 2011 21:34:44 GMT

On Tue, 03 May 2011 07:56:50 -0700, Richard Gaskin ... It's bug #8212 in the RQCC.

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Ambassador@... — Wed, 04 May 2011 04:20:38 GMT

... Good sleuthing. Thanks for looking into this. I didn't recreate your three-stack test, but I did recreate my two-stack test, and posted it here:

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Monte Goulding — Wed, 04 May 2011 02:54:27 GMT

... It was new to me that this might be the case so I ran a test too. I created 3 stacks. One with a button and two with an image each. The images had the same

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Richard Gaskin — Tue, 03 May 2011 15:00:36 GMT

... Good question, so I ran a test in which I made two separate stack files, one containing an image and another containing a field. I set the htmlText of the

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Richard Gaskin — Tue, 03 May 2011 14:58:40 GMT

... I'm imagining that for shared components like behaviors we could use naming conventions similar to what we commonly use for libraries, e.g.:

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Richard Gaskin — Tue, 03 May 2011 14:56:59 GMT

... So far in my own tests it seems names are good, but if there is a case where one must use IDs it would be very helpful to know. ... Since IDs have a

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Mark Rauterkus — Tue, 03 May 2011 11:10:34 GMT

Furthermore, what is the best system for picking names so that the name reference is clear and less of a problem into the future? Calling graphics, image1 or

Re: Deprecate ImageIDs database?

Monte Goulding — Mon, 02 May 2011 22:39:18 GMT

On 03/05/2011, at 7:49 AM, richard g wrote ... My understanding was using the name reference was very limited in that the engine only looks on the current