[REBOL] Re: Commercializing Rebol
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 16-May-2001 13:46
Robert M. Muench
wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
> > GS Jones
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:36 PM
> > To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> > Subject: [REBOL] Re: Commercializing Rebol
>
> > The concept is solid, in my opinion, and would be the sort of solution I
> > would like to see for REBOL applications meant for distribution to the
> > general public (meaning, less than truly computer-competent).
>
> Hi, maybe someone from RT can have a look at it, for RT it should be a
> no-brainer to create the right solution ;-)).
>
> > The REBOL
> > runtime (and runtimes yet to be) apparently achieves some of these
> > goals. An expanded wrapper-type solution including database would be
> > ideal.
>
> I like the wrapper idea, too. It's really nice to be able to pack everything you
> need into one EXE file. I hope RT will expand this idea further. Since HD space
> is so cheap I really don't like the shared-library concept anymore.
But wait a minute - who speaks of shared libraries? Besides that - if you prefer
bloat
in principle, it says someting. It has nothing to do with HD space. But -
mobile communication is coming. There is no space to waste. Mobile networks are also
throughput limited - how do you upgrade your component if everything is internally
inside one .exe? Let's say Carl changes something in VID and I really don't
understand why should I download the whole Rebol once again. Rebol, in its
principle, - is very granular (referring to series).
If you don't like your files scattered around your harddisk, probably some looong
time ago suggested aproach could work, but I am not sure - maybe rebol could have
some 'pack 'unpack commands, which would attach components into the executable. But
then having .zip allowing us to work inside of .zip archive as with default
directory would be probably more efficient - you can just use plenty of file
managers (not stupid Windows Explorrer) to enter such files and treat them as being
directories - then you can "pack" your desired functionality (whole directory
structures) inside (but maybe speed would be the problem here) ...
But maybe you mean just something different? e.g. mechanism working as linker, which
would pack functionality needed into one executable, so if DLL contains e.g. 10
funcs and only 3 of them are called, then those 3 would be linked in? Or?
> How many
> time have you lost because of problems with shared files, wrong versions etc.?
> Just compile everything into one file
You can as well have your librarie in the same directory as app is, so what version
problems are you talking about? Remember - we are not talking system libraries and
its dependencies here, right? So if you are author of an app, and you KNOW your
clients will need new library, just put
REBOL [
Author: "Robert Muench"
Needs: [
file: %my-lib.dll
version: 3.0
home: http://www.robertmuench.de/projects/companyXY/appZ/my-lib.dll
]
... it would not be problem for RT to create such support mechanisms imo .... or you
can always check for the right version to be in-place and download it if not present
....
There is many possibilities,
-pekr-
