Posts by DecSoft

Hello John,

It's not an easy question for sure. I am not a user of any version control program, except GIT, which I use sometimes for some projects, basically, with Github and the Github desktop program. I am not sure if the integration of any version control can help, since we can directly use any version control program that we wanted, maintaining the programs separated. For example, I can imagine to use Github for desktop for certain app: so we have the best of AB, and, the best of Github for desktop.

The previous generation of AB save some "history" of the changes, but using our own method, to say like that. I did not implement something similar in AB2, maybe because in AB we are talking about a single file, and, AB2 uses various files to store the app and the app's views stuff, so may I consider more difficult (in terms of the time that saving something twice can take) than in the previous AB generation.

Maybe I can try to save a similar "history" of changes in AB2, even if we deal now with various files and not a single one. But again, I am not sure about... finally, we can decide to made backups manually (with the help of some BAT file, for example, maybe the Build programs options in the app can help here, since can invoke some programs before and after build the app), or may using an external program like Github for desktop.

I think this can be the best... probably the integration of GIT is not suitable for use for a majority of users of AB (included me...)... and the integration can be for sure less nice than if we use directly something like Github for desktop. So why not to maintain the things separated? Why to try to emulate something like Github for desktop? We already have such program... and can use it for free... and probably I never can reach that kind of integration in AB, so...

Please, let me know what you think about. Certainly maybe implement something like the "history" of changes which we have previously in the previous generation of AB can be good, maybe enhancing it in some way, since in the previous generation of AB we can see the "history" of changes saved in the disk, but, that's all,... we can't restore a previous version from AB, for example. But again... my bet is to made the possible backups in our own ways... backups are good for sure, and, maybe just copy the app directory can be good, or may using something like Github for desktop or a similar program.

Hello John,

Depend if we are talking about an app that must in mobile (smaller) screens or not. If the app is intended to run in mobile devices and also in more larger screens, then we must design the app (design size) in a mobile screen size, like the default one (320x360) and then we may can use app's options like MaxWidth and MaxHeight, so, we see the app scaling well until larger screen, in which we can see it running at a maximum size, avoiding too much scale of it.

However, if the app is intended to be run as a desktop app, then maybe we can consider to go beyond the default 320x360 designed size, supose something like 800x600 or 1024x768, and then, let the app to scale for the case of more larger screens. The point is that AB apps can scale to the greater, but not to the smaller (see this help topic), so, if we use a 800x600 design size, we can't see it very well in smaller screens, but, if this is not the case (we don't target that smaller screens), then that design size or may a bit greater can be fine.

You may also can consider to use the fixed style instead the scaled one: for example, if you want the app running with Cordova Electron, it's possible to decide a maximum size for the app window, and, the option to not maximize it by the user, so, a fixed size can be good here. But probably the scale style is good too, and, anyway, we can change from that styles also at runtime if needed.

So please made some tests: try with various design sizes and don't hesitate to ask here (or in a new forum's thread) if you think that I can help you in some specific questions.

P.S. Remember that the HTML control is quite powerful, in the sense that we can use HTML markup and the CSS style from the Boostrap CSS framework, so, it's possible to use the Bootstrap CSS grid system, for example, helping us also in the app scalation.

Hello to all,

Here is a new DecSoft App Builder with the below changes, fixes and enhancements:

Read the entire product's history

Hello John,

Certainly, you touch a good point... you are right, the "sendMessage" don't work as expected, well, as you can see it working in the WebExtension sample app, for example. I think this can be caused because the "sendMessage" used in the WebExtension sample app is called after an action (a button click) in the same app, and not an event from the extension content script.

Let me to take a look, John, maybe I can find some possible alternative or finally find what can happen in this situation.

Hello John,

Unfortunately, if I am not wrong, we don't have something like that in the JavaScript / Web world. I take a look specifically talking about the Web Extensions, but nothing what I try finally can get something working as expected. I think the best is to try to search for a possible workaround here, John, so, maybe you can refer here exactly what you wanted, and, then, we can try to imagine some possible way to do the same, without rely in something like a "closed event", which in fact do not exists.

Hello John,

I am not too much friend to incorporate some specific interface design from one platforms to another, that is, the above it's called "Ribbon" interface, and, it's an artifact of Microsoft for Windows apps. The web is another thing, and, therefore, maybe it's good to have his own ways to do the things.

However, if you perform a search by "Ribbon JavaScript", that is, if you include the magic "Ribbon" word in your search, your problem will be to choose one of the many available alternatives to get something like that interface model working in HTML / JavaScript apps, so, you can try these alternatives... and see what is the best for you.

Then post here if you have some specific doubt or question about the implementation of your choosed library / (jQuery) plugin in your app, but, basically we are must talking about the use of the right HTML markup, JavaScript and CSS style.

Hello John,

Please, take a look at the "app.setVar()" method help, which can establish "global reactive variables" and also told you about this "reactive" variables and the ability to use just "global variables" using the "window" one as the parent for it.

There is no variables "only for views", however, it's possible to establish it if we wanted and in two possible ways. Supose we are talking about the "Show" event of an app view, then, we can define a variable like the below one:

Declaring a variable like the above, means that that variable is available only for the app view Show event, and, not out of that event. But, taking the example of the "non reactive global variables" (as you can see in the above link), we can think in the declaration of variables like below:

Doing that, what you get is a variable placed in a specific container, to say like that, so, you can know that that variable refers to some specific app "myView" variables. So there is not something "out of the box", but, we have the freedom to establish variables in "containers" like the above, who can provide some context for that variables.

About the variables defined in the app and the variables defined in the context of a a Web Extension, we must remember that that contexts are completely separated, so, we can't define app variables to be accessed from the context of the Web Extension and viceversa. This applies also to the local storage: if I am not wrong, the local storage that we can use in the Web Extension context are not the same than the app local storage.

Fortunately we can pass messages from the Web Extension context and the app context and viceversa, so, it's possible to send a message to the app which inform to the app that must save some value in certain app local storage using the "app.setOption" method, for example. So what we must take in consideration is that the contexts are different, and we can't directly accesss the contexts in a "direct way", but, using the communication / messages mechanism.

Please, go ahead and post here if you have some doubts or any further questions around these points.

Hello John,

I think I understand your point. There is someting called "layouts" in AB1, maybe you remember it. That "layouts" is something that must be implemented in AB2. The point is that it's not an easy thing... even no possible... the last time I try it. But I will try again with that, John, I know that layouts, have different layouts, it's something good, so, I must work on it. For now... you must pin / close it everytime... but I hope in the future the layouts are supported in AB2 like are supported in AB1.

P.S. If I don't understand your question, please, post your comments here and I will try to help!

Glad to know that you got it, John! :-)

Hello Michael,

Unfortunately, Cordova Android don't support app bundles yet: probably we can get ready with that in the near future. You can take a look at this Cordova Android issue at Github: maybe it's possible to get the app bundle using Android Studio. However, in my knowledge, the app bundle notice that you get is a warning, not an error, that is, you can continue publishing the app's APK anyway, so, my recomendation is that you do that, and, wait for the support for app bundles in Cordova Android.

Hello Peter,

There are various things to consider here. Honestly I think that compile for 32 and 64 bits can be good "as is", because, except for the disk space, probably that can be what we wanted: get both 32 and 64 bits builds ready to be deployed and used. Yes; I can place some option in order to prepare only the 32 or the 64 bits releases, but, I am not sure about... honestly...

Another thing to consider is to take in consideration this issue of Cordova Electron. As you can see, there is certain issue which causes that the app builders be a bit larger than the possible: I supose this can be enhanced by the Cordova's team in the near future, but, certainly you can follow the instructions of that issue / link in order to get an smaller releases of the app.

About the Calculator sample app, the point is that that sample is included in the previous generation of DecSoft App Builder: the new one do not include a sample like that. Maybe I can include it in the future, however.

Hello Peter,

Unfortunately, the answer is no. That is, we can't see the contents of the HTML control: certainly can be better to see it, but, the designer don't allow something like that. The first generation of AB has an HTML preview panel, in order to see the contents of the HTML controls, but, this do not work very good, so, the new generation of the product don't include something like that. Fortunately, compile and run the app is a question of milliseconds / seconds, so, I trust in that to see what happen with the content of the HTML control. So yes, can be good to see the controls in the HTML control, but, certainly it's not possible in the current designer. I think you can get confidence with that after some time, that is, once you prepare an HTML control with the appropriate stuff, you can survive with that. That's my honest opinion, suposing that there is not a way to do what you wanted.

No problem John! Always thanks you for your trust!

Hello John,

Glad to know that you got what you wanted. Please, let me to comment something about: above you mention that you are using "bootstrap.min.css", but, what this mean? That is, since Bootstrap CSS is the framework used in our apps, you no need to include that file using the app's Files manager, because the Bootstrap CSS is already available "out of the box". So, if you are including that file, just don't do it, because you are duplicating that stuff, which maybe can cause some unexpected behaviour: but the main point is that that stuff is already available, John, so we no need to include it by using the app's Files manager.

Hello Eduardo,

Maybe we can't do nothing about the "The AudioContext was not allowed to start. It must be resumed (or created) after a user gesture on the page." issue, since it's a browser's security check: did not allow the audio to start without an user interaction first. It's similar than the video "autoplay" option: can only work in muted videos. Just think that a website start to play audio without the user intervention... this can be very annoying and therefore the browsers try to limit it.

Maybe you can refer here a specific "audio framework" and what you are trying to do and therefore we can try to take a look around what we can do.

P.S. Try the things in external browsers in addition to the integrated debugger browser: maybe the integrated debugger browser can have some problems with audio / video which do not exists in external browsers: and finally our app works in external browsers, not in the debugger one.

P.S.2. Curiously the AudioPlayer app sample works as expected in Firefox and Edge even if we use the AutoPlay action... that is,... the audio starts automatically when the app start. However, the same don't work in Chrome in my tests. Maybe you want to take a look at this sample too, Eduardo.