>>Hi -
>>
>>Can someone please explain to me the capabilities of ReFox in regards to protecting your app from being decompiled? The way I understand it, is that it allows you to password protect your EXE from being decompiled WITH ReFox. Does it have any other capabilities?
>>
>>TIA!
>> ellen
>
>Yes, it can rebuild code from compiled files [in case you have lost or otherwise can not locate your code]. It works for rebuilding classes, prg files, etc.
>
>It's kind of an unjust irony that you can use Refox to reverse compile VFP code but need it to brand the compiled code to prevent reverse compiling.


Three of my MAJOR problems with ReFox:
1. When it decompiles the code, it uses the four-character abbreviation for commands rather than the full command (SELE instead of SELECT, DECL instead of DECLARE, etc). This really makes it diffucult to read the program, and one of the first things I do when I work on ReFoxed code is spend around a half-hour replacing these abbreviations with the actual command.
2. If your Fox 2.x code had screens, it does not recover the .SCX and .SCT files. Instead, it gives you the screen code as an .SPR. I don't know about you, but if I had a choice between getting a root canal without painkillers and having to make user interface modifications by wading my way through generated code, then make my dentist's appointment now.
3. It does not recover the developer comments. Granted, that may be asking a bit much. Since the comments are ignored when the program is compiled, I guess I can't expect a decompiler to come up with them. Still, I can wish, can't I?

Don't get me wrong. ReFox has saved my bacon a number of times, particularly now that I'm doing year 2000 assurance on ancient (7 years or older) executables that are three computers removed from their original source. But like all things associated with FoxPro, just becuase it's a good tool doesn't mean it can't be better.

Bill Yater