Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2008

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Re: Re: Player Pro and Packages

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg87728] Re: [mg87668] Re: [mg87596] Re: [mg87560] Re: Player Pro and Packages
  • From: John Fultz <jfultz at wolfram.com>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:03:56 -0400 (EDT)
  • Reply-to: jfultz at wolfram.com

Your proposed solution wouldn't work, as $UserBaseDirectory is earlier on the 
path than $InstallationDirectory.  I think you're going to have to reset those 
environment variables for Player Pro.

If you're running under Windows, you could create a batch file which sets the 
environment variables and then launches Mathematica.  This would also be pretty 
simple under Unix.  It's more complicated under Mac, but it wouldn't be too
difficult to at least create a script which resets the variables for the 
kernel's environment (perhaps you care less about the FE's environment).

If you need help, let me know what environment you're running under and I'll
help you craft something that works.

The fact that it wasn't different was just a silly oversight, and unfortunately, 
yours truly was responsible.  I'll fix it for future releases.

Sincerely,
 
John Fultz
jfultz at wolfram.com
User Interface Group
Wolfram Research, Inc.


On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:52:33 -0400 (EDT), Murray Eisenberg wrote:
> My concern is just the reverse of what your reply seems to address: I do
> NOT want packages within the locations to which MATHEMATICA_BASE and
> MATHEMATICA_USERBASE point to be sought first by Player Pro.
>
> I want to be able to have a separate location for, say, an encoded
> version of a package that I'm running with Player Pro, and a
> source-visible package I use for development within Mathematica itself.
>
> It sounds then like the only alternative would be to put the encoded
> version directly within the PlayerPro tree (is there an
> AddOns/Applications subdirectory?).  So...
>
> Will that work -- will PlayerPro first search for a package within its
> own directory tree despite settings of MATHEMATICA_BASE and
> MATHEMATICA_USERBASE?
>
> If not, that's really bad!
>
> If so, that's only partly good: it still forces me to put such things as
> (encoded) packages within the PlayerPro tree that might get wiped out
> whenever I re-install or upgrade PlayerPro.
>
>
> John Fultz wrote:
>> Yes.  Although, in retrospect, we should have considered changing the
>> names of these environment variables for Player Pro.  We might decide to
>> do this in a future version, but for now, MATHEMATICA_BASE and
>> MATHEMATICA_USERBASE will function just fine.
>>
>> For those who haven't noticed already (although most on this thread seem
>> to have realized it by now), the default values of $BaseDirectory and
>> $UserBaseDirectory are different from those in Mathematica, and so
>> packages installed for Mathematica will not, by default, show up for
>> Player Pro (i.e., you'll have to install Player Pro packages
>> separately).
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> John Fultz
>> jfultz at wolfram.com
>> User Interface Group
>> Wolfram Research, Inc.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:42:20 -0400 (EDT), Murray Eisenberg wrote:
>>> Will Player Pro allow use of environment variables MATHEMATICA_BASE
>>> and
>>> MATHEMATICA_USERBASE for finding packages -- as Mathematica itself
>>> does?
>>>
>>> David Bailey wrote:
>>>> David Park wrote:
>>>>> How many people have tried out Player Pro yet?
>>>>>
>>>>> I copied my private Applications folder over to the Player Pro
>>>>> folder
>>>>> and
>>>>> tried to run a notebook that used a private package. Player Pro
>>>>> found
>>>>> the
>>>>> style sheet that came with the package but did not find the
>>>>> package.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know how to incorporate a private package into Player
>>>>> Pro?
>>>>> Without that it seems to be rather limited.
>>>>>
>>>> I put a package in the 'old' package location beneath the
>>>> installation
>>>> directory. This appeared to work, and did not even require that the
>>>> package be encoded (as mentioned on the Wolfram website).
>>>>
>>>> David Bailey
>>>> http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk




  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: A Problem with Simplify
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: Re: Cannot Factor an expression
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Re: Player Pro and Packages
  • Next by thread: Re: Player Pro and Packages