Copy+Paste with SB

[NewsArchive]

SB's handling of Copy+Paste operations are rather odd:

- You don't actually use the clipboard, so tools like ClipMate aren't
helpful. (I _did_ just discover that you're using your own shared
memory, though, so I can copy and paste from one running instance of
SB to another.)

- Items that are specified in the "Files and Folders", "Shortcuts",
etc. sections appear in the script logic, but you cannot copy and
paste those lines, even though in many cases you have corresponding
operations for "regular" script lines.

Just wishing... <g>

Mike Hanson
www.boxsoft.net

[NewsArchive]

Hi Mike,

> SB's handling of Copy+Paste operations are rather odd:
>
> - You don't actually use the clipboard, so tools like ClipMate aren't
> helpful. (I _did_ just discover that you're using your own shared
> memory, though, so I can copy and paste from one running instance of
> SB to another.)

The problem is that the underlying script techology is too complex to copy
it via the Clipboard. For example, there are more than 25 different objects
just for a simple "Create Shortcut..." script line.

> - Items that are specified in the "Files and Folders", "Shortcuts",
> etc. sections appear in the script logic, but you cannot copy and
> paste those lines, even though in many cases you have corresponding
> operations for "regular" script lines.

File items from the "Files and Folders" Visualizer *CAN* be copied. Folder
items from the "Files and Folders" Visualizer cannot be copied.

If fact, all items that begin with a "::" (Visualizer driven) cannot be
"copied" because there is a data integrity protection function running in
the background. This is suboptimal, but it's by design and it's not trivial
to change this. Perhaps in V9... ;-)

Friedrich

[NewsArchive]

>> SB's handling of Copy+Paste operations are rather odd:
>>
>> - You don't actually use the clipboard, so tools like ClipMate aren't
>> helpful. (I _did_ just discover that you're using your own shared
>> memory, though, so I can copy and paste from one running instance of
>> SB to another.)
>
>The problem is that the underlying script techology is too complex to copy
>it via the Clipboard. For example, there are more than 25 different objects
>just for a simple "Create Shortcut..." script line.

It sounds like you need another object to represent the shortcuts on
the clipboard. <g>

>> - Items that are specified in the "Files and Folders", "Shortcuts",
>> etc. sections appear in the script logic, but you cannot copy and
>> paste those lines, even though in many cases you have corresponding
>> operations for "regular" script lines.
>
>File items from the "Files and Folders" Visualizer *CAN* be copied. Folder
>items from the "Files and Folders" Visualizer cannot be copied.
>
>If fact, all items that begin with a "::" (Visualizer driven) cannot be
>"copied" because there is a data integrity protection function running in
>the background. This is suboptimal, but it's by design and it's not trivial
>to change this. Perhaps in V9... ;-)

In my case, I was hoping the Copy+Paste would convert them from
"Visualizer" objects in the sb7 file to to their "Script Function"
equivalents in an sbi.

Mike Hanson
www.boxsoft.net

[NewsArchive]

> It sounds like you need another object to represent the shortcuts on
> the clipboard. <g>

Yes <g>

> In my case, I was hoping the Copy+Paste would convert them from
> "Visualizer" objects in the sb7 file to to their "Script Function"
> equivalents in an sbi.

Yes, that's a problem -- it's not possible (yet). But on the long run,
we'll try to get rid of the protected ("::") items.

Friedrich

[NewsArchive]

>> It sounds like you need another object to represent the shortcuts on
>> the clipboard. <g>
>
>Yes <g>
>
>> In my case, I was hoping the Copy+Paste would convert them from
>> "Visualizer" objects in the sb7 file to to their "Script Function"
>> equivalents in an sbi.
>
>Yes, that's a problem -- it's not possible (yet). But on the long run,
>we'll try to get rid of the protected ("::") items.

I guess from the perpective of the user, it looks like those two
personas are mostely similar (at least all the dialog options appear
similar). Is it really that tough to have an object that represents
the common elements between the two, and use that for Copy+Paste
operations?

Mike Hanson
www.boxsoft.net

[NewsArchive]

Hi Mike,

>>Yes, that's a problem -- it's not possible (yet). But on the long run,
>>we'll try to get rid of the protected ("::") items.
>
> I guess from the perpective of the user, it looks like those two
> personas are mostely similar (at least all the dialog options appear
> similar). Is it really that tough to have an object that represents
> the common elements between the two, and use that for Copy+Paste
> operations?

The "Create Folder", "Create Shortcut" and "Edit Registry" Visualizer items
are not compatible with their equivalents from the Script Editor. Under the
hood, they are completely different and so the "copy and paste"
functionality does not work.

For example, add a registry key in the Visualizer and compare it with the
"Edit Registry..." script function. Completely different.

With the knowledge I have today, I would not choose that design again. But
11 years ago it seemed to be a good idea <g>

Friedrich

[NewsArchive]

>Hi Mike,
>
>>>Yes, that's a problem -- it's not possible (yet). But on the long run,
>>>we'll try to get rid of the protected ("::") items.
>>
>> I guess from the perpective of the user, it looks like those two
>> personas are mostely similar (at least all the dialog options appear
>> similar). Is it really that tough to have an object that represents
>> the common elements between the two, and use that for Copy+Paste
>> operations?
>
>The "Create Folder", "Create Shortcut" and "Edit Registry" Visualizer items
>are not compatible with their equivalents from the Script Editor. Under the
>hood, they are completely different and so the "copy and paste"
>functionality does not work.
>
>For example, add a registry key in the Visualizer and compare it with the
>"Edit Registry..." script function. Completely different.
>
>With the knowledge I have today, I would not choose that design again. But
>11 years ago it seemed to be a good idea <g>

That's Refactor, with a capital "R". <g>

Mike Hanson
www.boxsoft.net

[NewsArchive]

Well, a good search mechanism would help a lot. :)

Jeff Slarve
www.jssoftware.com
www.twitter.com/jslarve

[NewsArchive]

Shall I Google it for you? <g>

Russell B. Eggen
www.radfusion.com