realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Mach-o console applications

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Mach-o console applications
From: Loren <getreal at otheroffice dot com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 01:45:24 -0700
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <09e6b0a406942d96172ae84befc42305 at great-white-software dot com> <2C377E3E-38FF-49BC-818B-6961E7BEFB22 at haranbanjo dot com> <BA3E6267-2722-4B5D-B8CA-4A3BC8E8AB0B at otheroffice dot com> <60F5C0E6-D449-44BF-802C-4DC55B4B5227 at boisseau dot co dot uk>
Thanks Charlie -

it's actually your CGI example that i'm using and had the question about it for... putting the the app name in the url twice kinda stinks..

/cgi-bin/name/name

-loren


On Jun 30, 2005, at 1:27 AM, Charlie Boisseau wrote:

They are different. Lots of things are stripped out of the framework for console apps (like graphics etc).

Norman, here are some feature requests for this:

<http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php? reportid=imxstwqv> <http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php? reportid=svdjvzcb>

--
Charlie Boisseau

On 30 Jun 2005, at 07:50, Loren wrote:


Resources.rsrc and rbframework.dylib files are the same for different console compiled apps? i would like to just stick in more apps into the main folder, have tried it and works, but not sure if it's trustable to do


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>