Re: [ActiveLock] ActiveLock 2.0 Alpha 1 Released

[Thanh H. T. <th...@ya...>]

Nelson,
Thanks for looking in.  We were planning to formally ask you for a =
review of it anyway, just to make sure it's up to par with your vision =
for ActiveLock.
Re: =20
> This is good news and bad news at the same time. Although the DLL =
version
> is more versatile (and ActiveLock used to be a DLL), the OCX format =
makes
> it easier to use.
We created it as a DLL with the goal for security. Once, we've =
established that it is secure (we're not sure it is or not...have to =
wait for alpha and beta test results), then it is a reasonably trivial =
task to put an OCX wrapper on top to make it even easier to use.  I =
don't think it's too bad as is anyway in terms of ease of use,  but =
we'll wait for the jury on that as well.
Thanh.
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Michael E. Crute=20
  To: Act...@ya...=20
  Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [ActiveLock] ActiveLock 2.0 Alpha 1 Released


  Nelson...
  Good to hear from you again. The new DLL approach allows for alot =
better security as a binary compatible hack is harder to achieve as well =
as a lot more versatility. As for our release cycle when we get to beta =
we will probably branch off and continue development until the full =
release then merge back into the trunk when we are sure that both the =
trunk and branch are stable. Then do a full release of version 2.0. =
Thanks for the suggestion.

  -Mike

  Nelson Correa de Toledo Ferraz wrote:

    MEC>Yesterday night the newest version of ActiveLock was released =
into alpha.
    MEC>ActiveLock 2.0 is the newest version of ActiveLock and presents =
some
    MEC>major feature and security improvements over its predecessor, =
ActiveLock
    MEC>1.89. Full source code and compiled versions of ActiveLock =
2.0-alpha1 as
    MEC>well as basic API documentation can be downloaded from the =
ActiveLock
    MEC>project website

    Congratulations for this release! I'll take a look on the source =
code as
    soon as possible. ;)

    The release notes say: "New DLL API - no more OCX"

    This is good news and bad news at the same time. Although the DLL =
version
    is more versatile (and ActiveLock used to be a DLL), the OCX format =
makes
    it easier to use.

    The release notes also state that "Alpha 1 only includes license =
file
    storage / Future releases will support Windows Registry Storage"

    In my opinion, this is a feature, not a bug, because text files are =
far
    more portable than the registry. It will be nice to have the =
registry=20
    alternative, though.

    Finally, a suggestion:

    You could call the next release "ActiveLock 2.0 beta" and then =
declare
    feature freeze, in order to make it stable. When you feel it is =
stable
    enough, release "ActiveLock 2.0" and start a new cycle with new =
features,
    called ActiveLock 2.1.

    Good luck!

    []s

    Nelson

    __________________________________________________________________
    Nelson Ferraz                           Insite - Solucoes Internet
    e-mail: nf...@in...           http://www.insite.com.br/





    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Act...@ya...

    Visit the group website at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ActiveLock

    Get the latest version of Active Lock at: =
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ActiveLock/files=20

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. =




--=20
****************************************
Michael E. Crute
Senior Applications Developer
SoftGroup Development Corporation
mc...@so...
        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20
              ADVERTISEMENT
            =20
      =20
      =20



  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  Act...@ya...

  Visit the group website at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ActiveLock

  Get the latest version of Active Lock at: =
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ActiveLock/files=20

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20