Suggestion for future-proofing TailBite libs

TailBite specific forum

Moderators: gnozal, lexvictory, ABBKlaus

PB
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 7581
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:24 pm

Suggestion for future-proofing TailBite libs

Post by PB »

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.
User avatar
Rings
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:11 am

Post by Rings »

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 ;)
Last edited by Rings on Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
SPAMINATOR NR.1
PB
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 7581
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:24 pm

Post by PB »

> 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.
User avatar
Rings
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:11 am

Post by Rings »

everything can/would be encrypted...believe me
SPAMINATOR NR.1
gnozal
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 4229
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:27 am
Location: Strasbourg / France
Contact:

Post by gnozal »

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).
User avatar
Rings
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1403
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:11 am

Post by Rings »

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
Post Reply