Re: Player Pro and Packages
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg87631] Re: Player Pro and Packages
- From: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <ftq5dn$l3$1@smc.vnet.net> <ftsctl$b6r$1@smc.vnet.net> <ftv916$7tr$1@smc.vnet.net>
David Reiss wrote: > On Apr 13, 3:32 am, David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk> > 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 an= > d >>> tried to run a notebook that used a private package. Player Pro found th= > e >>> 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). >> > > If that's so it would be a "Whoops!" for WRI... > > >> David Baileyhttp://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk > > My feeling is that there are so many ways of inputting a string and converting the result with ToExpression, that it might be better to handle abuses of PlayerPro by means of suitable wording in the license conditions. Plugging all the loopholes to prevent the execution of an arbitrary expression would seem to be almost impossible, and would greatly restrict the usefulness of PlayerPro. For example, if J/Link is disabled (it seems to work with the current version)to prevent the input of expressions via a Java interface, that will make a whole range of totally innocent applications unable to use PlayerPro. David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk