<i><font color="#663300">It makes a difference which one you use. Qstart will create a project that is compatible with 3.x, but not compatible with 6.1. Newapp was written to create a project compatible with 6.1.
</font></i>
I used NewApp.
<i><font color="#663300">
You don't have to include the Security folder or anything about security in your app. I removed the security stuff from my template project over a year ago.
</font></i>
I'm not sure why I had to include it. I just know it was the first thing I had to do to get the distribution App running. As I recall, the App just opened on the test machine and immediately exited without comment. In tracing the code on the development machine I discovered something about opening a file in the SECURITY folder and if it wasn't there security failed, the App exited. When I added the SECURITY folder, the App opened and I had different problems.
<i><font color="#663300">
The dbPaths table is for the developer to specify additional search paths where the app might have to look for additional data or metadata. I have never had any reason to ZAP it. After I took security out of the project, the security path info was in several of the dbPaths tables lying around on user machines with no problem.
</font></i>
I put DBPATHS in because the App complained it couldn't find it. Then it found it and complained it couldn't find my data path, which was setup for the development machine in DBPATHS. Once I had my registry settings fixed, it apparently no longer needed DBPATHS. In response to your comment, I tried renaming the files on my test system and got no errors when running the App. When I removed the registry settings and ran the App, it complained in the path configuration/setup dialog that it couldn't find DBPATHS.
<i><font color="#663300">
It's a shame you had this experience. It is quite different than mine. A number of the fixes in 6.1 solved problems that had been causing me problems for quite a while.
</font></i>
The reason I switched to 6.1 was that it <i>is</i> better in many ways. For the most part I have been happy with the improvements. I've just been frustrated by the number of times I've had to resort to chasing down bugs in CodeBook and in VFP 6. (I'm <i>really</i> hoping the rumors of improved stability of 7.0 are true. I was starting to look at Delphi, since I'm an old fan of Turbo Pascal.) Unfortunately, I live in a smaller community where there isn't much money for custom software and haven't been able to devote myself to software development to the extent that I would prefer, so I haven't been doing much new development work for the last year. I started a new, large project for a long-time client several months ago and have been catching up on CodeBook since then. For folks who have the luxury of playing with the beta versions, I expect the bugs seem pretty ironed out because the ones they are likely to encounter during testing get fixed and to them it seems pretty stable. I encounter different ones.
<i><font color="#663300">
That's why I always test the compiled app on a non-development machine before I attempt to deploy it.
</font></i>
Me too. I have a special system with many different hard drives mounted in easy to use slide-in trays so I can boot different operating systems and configurations for testing purposes.
Thanks for the reply. It's appreciated.
Jim Hansen
Canyon Country Consulting
©2001 James H. Hansen |
