Hi Edvard,

> This works, and coold be a very good example project.
> I am not acustomed to projects - I am an APP programmer, which is a
> completely other animal.
> It is extremly easy to change it to take 6 parameters - My 6 modules, and
> to make the nessecary changes to the file.
> If you look at the NG's of today, you will find that I have been working
> with this since 5:23 (AM) this morning.
> Thanks to everybody, who has followed this over the day.

The advantage of the .prj/.clw examples is that everything is in one place
(the .clw source file). In an .APP there are several different places to
look at to find out how it works.

In fact, there is not much difference between the technique used in an .APP
and .PRJ to develop DLLs in Clarion.

But I'll add the .app demo to the Examples package.

> We will send app. 1500 out on march 1.st, and just the thought of sending
> 1 to 6 CD's to every customer...
> + an indivudual licence cd.

Cool!

> Just wonder a bit of what to do with the Citrix customers (MSI Scripts
> developed with SetUpBuilder).
> OK, I think they will get a program based upon my dll, and a licence to
> make licence files. After all, the Citrix customers are all cities, and
> they generally are quite trustworthy.

The advantage of EXE installations compiled with SetupBuilder is that they
are secure.

In contrast to this, MSI installations are absolutely insecure! You can use
freely available Microsoft tools to open the SQL database (an MSI is nothing
more or less than a SQL database) and manipulate it. Remove a table or
change a value and the verification process is disabled. I am always
shocked when I see that software companies (even some "big boys") do serial
number verification from within a MSI install.

So it does not make any sense to use your protection mechanism in the MSI.

> The better call you can get from thar sort of customer is: 'I have tried
> your programme from another customer in this city. Please send me an
> invoice'. Alternative to: Send a consultant.

<g>

Friedrich