I am converting HTML5 file to .exe using HTML EXECUTABLES converter. After converting to exe, the total size comes around 70 to 80MB. So the problem is when i update a single CSS file I have to convert the whole project again to a exe and give it to my Client and every time i have to upload 80MB file for very small changes.
Is there any other alternate option to update a certain file instead of converting again to exe.
Unless the converter is just creating a zip file with executable archiver: The answer is no.
There are tools however, that let you create a binary path for 2 files, so that you only have to transfer the diff of both. You would however have to create the new EXE and then diff it to the old one for that. So that does not help you too much. Stuff like that is usually done if you handle files in the gigabyte range.
See here for some hints for that: How do I create binary patches?
Or you might try the customer service of your tool, maybe they have an idea: http://www.htmlexe.com/contact
Since my experience with HTML is fairly rudimentary (and pretty old), I am not sure if my requirement is realistic.
Lets say that I have quite a few files containing Lua source-code, and all of them have the ".lua" extension and available in a particular subdirectory. What I'd like to do is create a static index.html file, which when loaded in a browser, would show the list of the lua source-code files in a drop-down. Once one of the source-code files is selected, I'd like that the file gets loaded into an "area" on the same page, and is pretty-printed, i.e. with syntax-highlighting in browser. I was wondering if I could use something like the google-code-prettyfy for the syntax-highlighting part ? Also, I am not clear if an external lua sourcecode file can be loaded, and displayed within a certain region of html page as being rendered. If yes, would appreciate elaboration on the how part.
A tool like LDoc can be used to accomplish a lot of what you want, much as Doxygen would be used for a C language source kit.
Both are heavily driven by inclusion of specially formatted comments that carry documentation.
I know Doxygen can fold source code into the generated document set, I don't recall about LDoc. Both are actively under development.
It isn't necessarily a bad idea to use both tools on a project, especially if you have C source code implementing Lua modules. You could use Doxygen to build the overall document tree for your engine and C modules, and LDoc to build documentation of the Lua parts. It should be possible with a little care and configuration of both tools to get them to play well together.
I have a parameter and, on F4, we can choose the directory. I'm trying to figure out how to choose a folder and read the content of all the files in it (the files are in .CSV) to an internal table. I think I have to use TMP_GUI_DIRECTORY_LIST_FILES function. Hope I'm explaining myself. Thank you.
You'll have to do this manually: first read the list of files, the go through each file and process its contents. There may be some odd function modules to read CSV files, but be aware that many of them are broken - for example, they just clip the lines that exceed a certain length. Therefore I won't recommend any of them - personally, I'd implement the CSV import part myself.
If you have access to the transaction KCLJ in your system you could analyze the coding behind it. This tool has an option to interpret CSV files so you might find interesting function modules that might help you with your tasks.
EDIT: I looked at it very quickly and the piece of coding you could reuse is reconvert_format from include RKCDFILEINCFOR. An example how to call it is located starting from line 128 in the same include.
I have lots of scanned images of a magazine(published monthly) and i have to organize it in searchable manner.
User should be able to view magazine issue wise or can search for predefined categories/keywords.
What i have thought for now, is to create CHM as it will need less effort than creating a new custom built software.
For that i will create seperate HTMl page(Programatically) with image embedded in it along with the keywords(Stored in Excel sheet along with path of Image) for which that image should be included in result.
So i want a chm creator that can parse html meta tags and add keywords in chm keywords list.
One such software i have found is Abee CHM Maker
But i need some free alternative.
If you have any other idea to organize it with minimal efforts, then also you are welcome...
The standard (free) way to create chm files is using Microsoft's HTML help workshop:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms670169(v=vs.85).aspx
Kind regards,
Bo
Free Pascal has a CHM creator package, a html DOM implementation and a basic commandline compiler for CHM projects (.hhp). The creator package is independent of MS tools or any other binary blob, and available in source. It is portable as far as FPC is portable (not as portable as gcc on paper, but enough in practice with all major architectures and OSes supported)
One could make something like that, I made something similar, but instead of meta, I folded back titles into TOC and index and cleaned up html (TeX4ht output) and fixed links before turning it into a chm.
But it will require some work, and if you are not familiar with Object Pascal/Delphi (the language), it might be a bridge too far. (the hours required would not compare favorably with the costs of the Abee thing, if that would suit your goals).
On the other hand, in a freely programmable system you can decide yourself how far you automatize things. I put in a lot of work once, and now all new output of tex4ht (with a certain fixed set of settings) formats nicely to chms.
See if this helps you (it certainly does what you need):
KEL CHM Creator: http://dumah7.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/kel-chm-creator-v-1-4-0-0/
Alternatively, I think you could add tags on each picture (right click on it-> Properties->Details->Tags) and use Windows explorer for searching them. I have never done this but it is supposed to be working (I guess).
It would be nice to have a more or less complete list over what files and/or directories that shouldn't (in most cases) be under source control. What do you think should be excluded?
Suggestion so far:
In general
Config files with sensitive information (passwords, private keys etc.)
Thumbs.db, .DS_Store and desktop.ini
Editor backups: *~ (emacs)
Generated files (for instance DoxyGen output)
C#
bin\*
obj\*
*.exe
Visual Studio
*.suo
*.ncb
*.user
*.aps
*.cachefile
*.backup
_UpgradeReport_Files
Java
*.class
Eclipse
I don't know, and this is what I'm looking for right now :-)
Python
*.pyc
Temporary files
- .*.sw?
- *~
Anything that is generated. Binary, bytecode, code/documents generated from XML.
From my commenters, exclude:
Anything generated by the build, including code documentations (doxygen, javadoc, pydoc, etc.)
But include:
3rd party libraries that you don't have the source for OR don't build.
FWIW, at my work for a very large project, we have the following under ClearCase:
All original code
Qt source AND built debug/release
(Terribly outdated) specs
We do not have built modules for our software. A complete binary is distributed every couple weeks with the latest updates.
OS specific files, generated by their file browsers such as
Thumbs.db and .DS_Store
Some other Visual Studio typical files/folders are
*.cachefile
*.backup
_UpgradeReport_Files
My tortoise global ignore pattern for example looks like this
bin obj *.suo *.user *.cachefile *.backup _UpgradeReport_Files
files that get built should not be checked in
I would approach the problem a different way; what things should be included in source control? You should only source control those files that:
( need revision history OR are created outside of your build but are part of the build, install, or media ) AND
can't be generated by the build process you control AND
are common to all users that build the product (no user config)
The list includes things like:
source files
make, project, and solution files
other build tool configuration files (not user related)
3rd party libraries
pre-built files that go on the media like PDFs & documents
documentation
images, videos, sounds
description files like WSDL, XSL
Sometimes a build output can be a build input. For example, an obfuscation rename file may be an output and an input to keep the same renaming scheme. In this case, use the checked-in file as the build input and put the output in a different file. After the build, check out the input file and copy the output file into it and check it in.
The problem with using an exclusion list is that you will never know all the right exclusions and might end up source controlling something that shouldn't be source controlled.
Like Corey D has said anything that is generated, specifically anything that is generated by the build process and development environment are good candidates. For instance:
Binaries and installers
Bytecode and archives
Documents generated from XML and code
Code generated by templates and code generators
IDE settings files
Backup files generated by your IDE or editor
Some exceptions to the above could be:
Images and video
Third party libraries
Team specific IDE settings files
Take third party libraries, if you need to ship or your build depends on a third party library it wouldn't be unreasonable to put it under source control, especially if you don't have the source. Also consider some source control systems aren't very efficient at storing binary blobs and you probably will not be able to take advantage of the systems diff tools for those files.
Paul also makes a great comment about generated files and you should check out his answer:
Basically, if you can't reasonably
expect a developer to have the exact
version of the exact tool they need,
there is a case for putting the
generated files in version control.
With all that being said ultimately you'll need to consider what you put under source control on a case by case basis. Defining a hard list of what and what not to put under it will only work for some and only probably for so long. And of course the more files you add to source control the longer it will take to update your working copy.
Anything that can be generated by the IDE, build process or binary executable process.
An exception:
4 or 5 different answers have said that generated files should not go under source control. Thats not quite true.
Files generated by specialist tools may belong in source control, especially if particular versions of those tools are necessary.
Examples:
parsers generated by bison/yacc/antlr,
autotools files such as configure or Makefile.in, created by autoconf, automake, libtool etc,
translation or localization files,
files may be generated by expensive tools, and it might be cheaper to only install them on a few machines.
Basically, if you can't reasonably expect a developer to have the exact version of the exact tool they need, there is a case for putting the generated files in version control.
This exception is discussed by the svn guys in their best practices talk.
Temp files from editors.
.*.sw?
*~
etc.
desktop.ini is another windows file I've seen sneak in.
Config files that contain passwords or any other sensitive information.
Actual config files such a web.config in asp.net because people can have different settings. Usually the way I handle this is by having a web.config.template that is on SVN. People get it, make the changes they want and rename it as web.config.
Aside from this and what you said, be careful of sensitive files containing passwords (for instance).
Avoid all the annoying files generated by Windows (thumb) or Mac OS (.ds_store)
*.bak produced by WinMerge.
additionally:
Visual Studio
*.ncb
The best way I've found to think about it is as follows:
Pretend you've got a brand-new, store-bought computer. You install the OS and updates; you install all your development tools including the source control client; you create an empty directory to be the root of your local sources; you do a "get latest" or whatever your source control system calls it to fetch out clean copies of the release you want to build; you then run the build (fetched from source control), and everything builds.
This thought process tells you why certain files have to be in source control: all of those necessary for the build to work on a clean system. This includes .designer.cs files, the outputs of T4 templates, and any other artifact that the build will not create.
Temp files, config for anything other than global development and sensitive information
Things that don't go into source control come in 3 classes
Things totally unrelated to the project (obviously)
Things that can be found on installation media, and are never changed (eg: 3rd-party APIs).
Things that can be mechanically generated, via your build process, from things that are in source control (or from things in class 2).
Whatever the language :
cache files
generally, imported files should not either (like images uploaded by users, on a web application)
temporary files ; even the ones generated by your OS (like thumbs.db under windows) or IDE
config files with passwords ? Depends on who has access to the repository
And for those who don't know about it : svn:ignore is great!
If you have a runtime environment for your code (e.g. dependency libraries, specific compiler versions etc.) do not put the packages into the source control. My approach is brutal, but effective. I commit a makefile, whose role is to downloads (via wget) the stuff, unpack it, and build my runtime environment.
I have a particular .c file that does not go in source control.
The rule is nothing in source control that is generated during the build process.
The only known exception is if a tool requires an older version of itself to build (bootstrap problem). In that case you will need a known good bootstrap copy in source control so you can build from blank.
Going out on a limb here, but I believe that if you use task lists in Visual Studio, they are kept in the .suo file. This may not be a reason to keep them in source control, but it is a reason to keep a backup somewhere, just in case...
A lot of time has passed since this question was asked, and I think a lot of the answers, while relevant, don't have hard details on .gitignore on a per language or IDE level.
Github came out with a very useful, community collaborated list of .gitignore files for all sorts of projects and IDEs that is worth taking a look.
Here's a link to that git repo: https://github.com/github/gitignore
To answer the question, here are the related examples for:
C# -> see Visual Studio
Visual Studio
Java
Eclipse
Python
There are also OS-specific .gitignore files. Following:
Windows
OS X
Linux
So, assuming you're running Windows and using Eclipse, you can just concatenate Eclipse.gitignore and Windows.gitignore to a .gitignore file in the top level directory of your project. Very nifty stuff.
Don't forget to add the .gitignore to your repo and commit it!
Chances are, your IDE already handles this for you. Visual Studio does anyway.
And for the .gitignore files, If you see any files or patterns missing in a particular .gitignore, you can open a PR on that file with the proposed change. Take a look at the commit and pull request trackers for ideas.
I am always using www.gitignore.io to generate a proper one .ignore file.
Opinion: everything can be in source control, if you need to, unless it brings significant repository overhead such as frequently changing or large blobs.
3rd party binaries, hard-to-generate (in terms of time) generated files to speed up your deployment process, all are ok.
The main purpose of source control is to match one coherent system state to a revision number. If it would be possible, I'd freeze the entire universe with the code - build tools and the target operating system.