Real Software Forums

The forum for Real Studio and other Real Software products.
[ REAL Software Website | Board Index ]
It is currently Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:17 am
xojo

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:11 pm
Posts: 65
Is REALSoftware planning to work on eliminating the need for external DLLs, or can we expect that the number will grow and it will become unavoidable?

After building one of my applications, there were three DLL dependencies.

Appearance Pak.dll, Internet Encodings.dll, and RegEx.dll.

"Appearance Pak.dll" was eliminated after removing a separator from a tab panel.

"Internet Encodings.dll" is vital but it looks as though it might easily be replaced: http://www.vb-helper.com/howto_url_encode_string.html

"RegEx.dll" is not required for my application, on the other hand. I was using regex for a simple IP address check, and that can be done in other ways. I can see myself wanting this feature in the future, though.

As far as I can tell, I can continue without any DLL dependencies in my applications.

What I'd like to know is if in the future we can expect a folder with some 25 DLLs built alongside our applications, making this current effort to avoid them futile.

It seems like it should be possible to re-add "Internet Encodings" and Regular Expressions in a way that doesn't create this external dependency, but I accept that I may be missing something.

(I have another application that builds "Shell.dll", but it looks as though there might be a workaround for this too: http://ramblings.aaronballman.com/2006/ ... _Port.html . I already get the feeling that this is a losing battle.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:57 am
Posts: 2
Hi,

Not very happy about this. I need to create professional software and after a long time I have selected RB2008r1. Now with the RB2008r2 I have the external .dll files, and it is not possible to have this kind of file structure for my use. I need a -real- solution.

Rapha


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 150
Location: Savannah, GA
Has anyone checked if there there is a significant difference in overall size (EXE plus DLL folder if created) if you compile a project in an earlier version of RB, then compile that same project in RB2008r2?

I'm guessing the size is roughly similar as it seems to me that including the DLLs inside the EXE (as was the case with previous versions) versus putting the DLLs in a folder shouldn't really change the overall project size--unless of course RS was compressing the DLLs inside the EXE.

If the overall file size is basically the same either way, then we can't really complain about duplicate DLL files in the folders if a project includes multiple EXE files, since older versions included the same duplicate DLLs inside the EXE. We might not have been able to see them, but if they were there taking up space, then the duplicate files existed inside the EXE.

If that is the case, then the problem with the new approach is that there is one more folder containing DLLs that we have to distribute/install and that might possibly confuse those few users who actually look/care what is on the disk. I liked the simplicity of the old single EXE, but I don't see this as a major problem.

I'm sure if I'm missing something, someone will let me know. :lol:

_________________
My latest projects http://www.mediatechnicscorp.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:51 pm
Posts: 420
Location: Cosalient EHR in Washington
One caveat when dealing with the new, altered file structure.

If you use your own folders and previously referred to them relative to your app's current working directory, you could previously use the exact same code under OSX and Windows build to access your subfolders. RB enclosing the exe and exe Libs inside another folder can change your relative paths depending on how you arrange the files.

I've gone to usually, (but not always) putting my own subfolders beside the "appName Libs" folder. In other words, I'm intentionally putting my own folders inside the RB generated, enclosing folder. Then, I'm renaming the enclosing folder. That lets me keep the same source code for folder access for both Mac and Windows build.

On the occasions I keep the RB generated subfolder pristine, I have to specially code my folder accesses under Windows to walk up to the parent folder and then back down.

_________________
RS 2012r1.1x OSX 10.8.x Win7 XP; MBP17 w OWC SSD


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Tue May 27, 2008 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:53 am
Posts: 2
I got the 7317 error, because of accents in a foldername in my path. All of my folders have accents, i'm French.

Having fixed this, and able to compile again, i notice now that there is a Libs folder with the application. I was so happy to have stand-alone applications. This sub-folder thing makes me have to copy the compiled file each time i try the build, since i have other local files to deal with. Thus, another pain.

Instead of anguishing in anger, i decided to read this thread. It did enlighten me, and helped me reach a state of mental peace again. Now that i understand, i'll simply have to re-design my application building habits,... again.

May the peace of the Buddha be with the development team. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:01 am
Posts: 58
Read Me.txt wrote:
Conclusion:
While this may seem like a hardship for REALbasic users creating Win32 applications, it's not as large of a problem as you might think. Zipping up a folder to send it to a friend is not much different from zipping up a single file (to reduce its size) to send it to a friend. And professional applications on Windows require an installer which can easily package the contents of the folder for distribution. ...

You are really great in insulting your customers as unprofessional application developers ...

I can not distribute my application with an ordinary installer, because nearly all of my customers are working in companies which do not have the permission on their computer to execute programms which write to system-areas. Zipping does not work, because some of them are using pre-XP-computers and can of course not install an unzip-programm. So one EXE-file is and was perfect!

Now I have to develop another programm which acts as an installer and writes the files out. Work for nothing, just because REALSoft is not able to write a DLL-Loader ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:21 pm
Posts: 12388
Location: Portland, OR USA
Just because you use an installer doesn't mean it has to write to system areas. You can "install" to purely user folders. An installer simply makes it easier on the end user; they don't have to decide where to put stuff - you decide ahead of time where you want everything to go, whether into a system area or user area or a little of both.

Tim


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1002
timhare wrote:
Just because you use an installer doesn't mean it has to write to system areas. You can "install" to purely user folders. An installer simply makes it easier on the end user; they don't have to decide where to put stuff - you decide ahead of time where you want everything to go, whether into a system area or user area or a little of both.

Tim



I'm Mac woman so I don't fully understand Windows administration. I do know that I have admin privileges on my Windows machine at work but most users don't have the privileges required to install software. At least that is what I have been told.

I assumed that meant they could not run an installer. So that's not true?

Up until now when I distributed my RB Windows apps internally at work I did not need an installer, just had the user copy the exe down from a network volume or emailed a zipped version of the exe (could not email exe's because the mail server would assume it's a virus).

Does that have to change?


- Karen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 3:21 pm
Posts: 12388
Location: Portland, OR USA
Quote:
Does that have to change?

No. Zip up the installer and email it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:53 am
Posts: 1002
timhare wrote:
Quote:
Does that have to change?

No. Zip up the installer and email it.


I meant just do that with the app folder.

I really don't want/need to use an installer in this environment. It is more work and users would not dare run it because the were told by the IT department that they can not "install" software. Of course that is mainly about licensing and virus issues (which don't apply to my apps) but IT does not explain the why, just makes rules.

To many PC user running an installer is INSTALLING software whereas copying a folder or expanding a zip archive into a folder is not seen as that, and people don't want to get in trouble.

I think that is more than a little nonsensical being a very long term Mac user, but that is how PC users seem to see it.


- Karen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 9341
Location: St Augusta, MN
You can also just zip up the folder and send it directly -- if it's an internal app, it probably won't confuse many people. Just be aware that the Mac likes to stick "invisible" files into folders that are visible on Windows. There are some zip utilities available, from what I've heard, that work around that annoyance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:50 pm
Posts: 2353
Location: England
Alex2K said:
Quote:
I can not distribute my application ... Zipping does not work, because some of them are using pre-XP-computers and can of course not install an unzip-programm. ...


PKZIP (and its associated PKUNZIP) began life as DOS programs, and were in general use as far back as Windows 3.1
OK, XP supports zip files straight out of the box, but PKZIP and Winzip were pretty much essential from Windows 95 onwards.
And RB apps are good from Win 98 /Win 2000 onwards (depending on the version you are compiling with).
The ZIP format is so widespread, even Mac OSX now supports it natively.

Use ZIP in confidence.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 7:10 pm
Posts: 3
Hello all,

I have developed an Application which bundles the RealBASIC-Executeable and the libraries together like it has been before RB2008R2.

And that's not all, it also compresses the bundle with a great compression rate. Depending on the application you can reach a compression of over 75%!
E.g. the RealBasic Example "Cool Clock" (Dates and Calendars) has originally a size of 3 MB, with the highest compression rate it can be compressed to 0.8MB which is a saving of 74%.

The Packager can also be used for Applications before RB2008R2 and for RB2008R2 Apps without external Libraries if you want to compress your Apps.
And you can choose an Icon for the final executeable.

Download it here (1.7 MB): http://www.2shared.com/file/3407683/491 ... kager.html

Cheers,
Tom

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 14
Getting pluginEntryTable: GetEntry(.... BevelButton error.

Created a project in RB2008R1 personal. Just purchased RB2008R4 Pro. Compiled with RB2008R4 Pro on a Windows XP computer and got the Appearance Pak.dll mentioned in this thread.

Copied the program executable and Appearance Pak.dll files into the same folder on a Vista computer and another XP computer. Put these files together on the XP development computer.

When running the program executable, getting the plugin method BevelButton.DeleteAllRows error on ALL THREE computers!

What am I missing?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Win32 Application Builder Changes
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:49 pm 
Offline
Real Software Engineer

Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:18 pm
Posts: 7858
Location: Canada, Alberta, Near Red Deer
You put the EXE and DLLS in the same folder ?
That's not how it was compiled nor the structure that was compiled

You need the EXE and the directory that holds the dll's (not just the DLL's)

If your app was like
- myApp.exe
- myApp Libs
--- AppearancePak.dll

that's precisely how it should be when you deploy it

_________________
Norman Palardy (Real Software)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group