It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:28 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Suggestion for future-proofing TailBite libs
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:31 am 
Offline
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:24 pm
Posts: 7581
I was thinking of two problems with TailBite that some people have mentioned.
It's the fact that some TailBite libs will break after a PureBasic update, and the
users have to wait until the original author updates them. Not good. Also, the
users run the risk that if the original author decides to stop updating the lib for
whatever reason, the lib they depend on may cease to exist.

So, my suggestion is this: since TailBite creates the lib from an everyday
normal PureBasic source, maybe the source could be included, but also
encrypted, with each lib. So TailBite would read the encrypted source
and then compile the library using the latest PureBasic version, thus
allowing the lib users to do it without waiting for an official update.
Know what I mean? So the lib's author can keep it closed-source
if he desires, and the lib is effectively made future-proof, even if
the lib author decides to no longer maintain it.

_________________
I compile using 5.31 (x86) on Win 7 Ultimate (64-bit).
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:41 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:11 am
Posts: 1390
what happens if a pb-command changes and you have to change that in source ?

i said no, no more encrypted sh*t .
Not the same as drm, please no.

-Source- is the only solution to avoid such, see PBOSL .



and remember, such a construct forces ppl
to encrypt (watch with a debuggertool) it ;)

_________________
SPAMINATOR NR.1


Last edited by Rings on Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:43 am 
Offline
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:24 pm
Posts: 7581
> what happens if a pb-command changes

True, I didn't think of that.

> no more encrypted sh*t

A lib without a source is effectively encrypted anyway, so that's irrelevant.
I wasn't asking for this for open-source libs, but for closed-source ones.

_________________
I compile using 5.31 (x86) on Win 7 Ultimate (64-bit).
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:45 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:11 am
Posts: 1390
everything can/would be encrypted...believe me

_________________
SPAMINATOR NR.1


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:16 am 
Offline
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:27 am
Posts: 4229
Location: Strasbourg / France
Rings wrote:
-Source- is the only solution to avoid such, see PBOSL .
Imho, one problem about PBOSL is that it's not maintained as it should / could be (no offense meant to anybody).
Iirc, but I may be wrong, there are libs not working with PB4 and/or having problems with unicode / threadsafe (and PB4 is already 1.5 years old), and not many new libs are created.

_________________
For free libraries and tools, visit my web site (also home of jaPBe V3 and PureFORM).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:28 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:11 am
Posts: 1390
gnozal wrote:
Rings wrote:
-Source- is the only solution to avoid such, see PBOSL .
Imho, one problem about PBOSL is that it's not maintained as it should / could be (no offense meant to anybody).
Iirc, but I may be wrong, there are libs not working with PB4 and/or having problems with unicode / threadsafe (and PB4 is already 1.5 years old), and not many new libs are created.

the libs from pbosl, that comes with pb source, can also be used directly with source (also calling a ProcedureDLL directly in PB has no problems).
The Problem mostly is that nobody looks into the sources ;)

_________________
SPAMINATOR NR.1


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

 


Powered by phpBB © 2008 phpBB Group
subSilver+ theme by Canver Software, sponsor Sanal Modifiye