must strip CurrencyToText class>>publishedAspectsOfInstances

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

must strip CurrencyToText class>>publishedAspectsOfInstances

Louis Sumberg-2
If you're using Ian's CurrencyToText class, it looks like
#publishedAspectsOfInstances should also be in the "must strip" category,
otherwise you'll get a warning, when deploying your app, that you're using
the development system (because of the reference to class Aspect in the
method.)  It seems that it's not enough for it to be in just the
"development" category.  Making this change seems to fix that problem.

Now, if only I could get rid of the same message, this easily, when using
the DBConnection.  Ah, but I see in DSDN this will be fixed in version 4.5
... err ... 5.0 I guess *s*.

-- Louis


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: must strip CurrencyToText class>>publishedAspectsOfInstances

Ravi
Louis,

Thanks for this tip. But could someone please explain how you put a
method in a "must strip" category and have that category (or any
category for that matter) to be stripped?

Thanks and best regards,
Ravi

"Louis Sumberg" <[hidden email]> wrote in message news:<a0hs5f$b35$[hidden email]>...

> If you're using Ian's CurrencyToText class, it looks like
> #publishedAspectsOfInstances should also be in the "must strip" category,
> otherwise you'll get a warning, when deploying your app, that you're using
> the development system (because of the reference to class Aspect in the
> method.)  It seems that it's not enough for it to be in just the
> "development" category.  Making this change seems to fix that problem.
>
> Now, if only I could get rid of the same message, this easily, when using
> the DBConnection.  Ah, but I see in DSDN this will be fixed in version 4.5
> ... err ... 5.0 I guess *s*.
>
> -- Louis


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: must strip CurrencyToText class>>publishedAspectsOfInstances

Ian Bartholomew
In reply to this post by Louis Sumberg-2
Louis,

> If you're using Ian's CurrencyToText class, it looks like
> #publishedAspectsOfInstances should also be in the "must strip" category,
> otherwise you'll get a warning, when deploying your app, that you're using
> the development system (because of the reference to class Aspect in the
> method.)  It seems that it's not enough for it to be in just the
> "development" category.  Making this change seems to fix that problem.

It's probably easier to just remove the method from the "development"
category. It is only in that category because of some sloppy drag/dropping
from an adjacent class - which is why the comment looks similar as well <g>.
This method is not used in a deployed application so it will, probably?, be
stripped anyway as part of the normal process.

Regards
    Ian


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: must strip CurrencyToText class>>publishedAspectsOfInstances

Ian Bartholomew
In reply to this post by Ravi
Ravi,

> Thanks for this tip. But could someone please explain how you put a
> method in a "must strip" category and have that category (or any
> category for that matter) to be stripped?

It's just one of the normal categories which you can use to categorize
methods - see the EducationCentre for more.  Once you have added a method to
the "must strip" or "must not strip" category you need do nothing else, the
image stripper is aware of these categories and may override it's normal
behaviour to either strip or not strip the method as appropriate.

Ian


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: must strip CurrencyToText class>>publishedAspectsOfInstances

Ian Bartholomew
In reply to this post by Ian Bartholomew
Whoops.

Commandment #11 - Thou shalt try things properly before opening thy big
mouth.

I'm not quite sure what I did before [1] but on further experimenting I
can't do it again and Louis is quite right - the method does need to be in
the "must strip" category.

Sorry all
    Ian

[1] although I have a feeling that my "clean" image wasn't