Custom Commands

[ekeneson]

We had a person here at work that wrote a lot of custom menus and comands that did such things as inserting blocks changing layers and a more complicated routine that would draw lines, insert blocks, insert text based on user input.  That person is no longer with the company and I would like to make some changes to those custom commands but I don't know what files they are in.  I have found the custom menus but i don't know where the custom commands are coming from.  Can anyone help. Thanks.

[ekeneson]

I never had the intention to remove the custom commnads I just wanted to make some changes but since I can't track down the source code I won't be able to do that. At least I learned a lot about where the commands come from and how they are loaded.  Thanks to everyone for your help.

[hmsilva]

---

@ekeneson wrote:

I opened the acaddoc.lsp file and saw where the .vlx apps are loaded. 

---

If the .vlx files are loaded with (load "xxxx.vlx"), the files must be at the Support File Search Path, or if ≥ R2013 SP1 at the TRUSTEDPATHS, if the .vlx files are loaded with the full path, see at the path

---

@ekeneson wrote:

I put a semi-colon in front of it to prevent it from loading and my custom commands stoped working. 

---

If the custom commands stoped working, I presume that the commands were working ok before you add the semi-colon...

---

@ekeneson wrote:

So I found the file that loads the commands but I can't find the source code for that particular vlx file.  The person who wrote them no longer works for the company and I have a feeling he took the files with him or deleted them or has them hidden somewhere.

---

If you have the custom commands working, you must have the source code in one drive, local, network... If it was me, I would start looking at the Support File Search Path and TRUSTEDPATHS.

Henrique

[dmfrazier]

I understood your intention from the beginning - I just wanted to be sure others understood it as well.

If this is important enough to you, another option would be to look for a "decompiler" for VLX and/or FAS files.  I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but a quick Google search suggests that it may be possible.

[dgorsman]

Most reputable forums won't assist with decompiling software, however.

[matt.worland]

ekeneson wrote:

"So I found the file that loads the commands but I can't find the source code for that particular vlx file.  The person who wrote them no longer works for the company and I have a feeling he took the files with him or deleted them or has them hidden somewhere."

I agree with dgorsman, Instead of decompiling the source code, contact the original author and ask for the source, or ask if they will make the change. Otherwise the best bet is to rewrite the code and do what you are after. 

If you have the time to rewrite, these discussion groups are full of experts that can assist where you get stuck.

[dmfrazier]

And I can certainly understand why that would be so.

Based on the OP's comment at the beginning of this thread:

"That person is no longer with the company..."

I took a leap of faith (so to speak) that the code writer was a fairly compensated employee, and therefore (presumably) the code would be "work product" belonging to the company (realizing, of course, that my assumption could be incorrect, as there are a variety of "arrangements" that can be made between companies and individuals).  If this is the case, I don't think there would be anything unethical about decompiling or decrypting code that is the property of the company, and I furthermore would hope that merely suggesting this as an option would not be considered unethical.

There are legitimate reasons for attempting to decompile or decrypt, and it's the responsibility of the person endeavoring to do it to ensure that doing it does not violate anyone's rights.

[dgorsman]

No worries - no implications intended 🙂

The subject of decompiling comes up once in a while, and while posters will swear up and down they aren't trying to bypass any kind of protection its usually best to just politely decline if only for future creators.

There's also the secondary concern that once code is decrypted, its ends up in a state that doesn't promote easy modification.  In anything but the simplest code its usually faster to start over using the existing work process as a template.  Ground-up rewrites also give the opportunity to provide some better future-proofing.

[dmfrazier]

"...the opportunity to provide some better future-proofing."

Future-proofing?

[dgorsman]

Make it easier to:

- migrate to a newer version

- add additional blocks

- change layer, linetype, text style, and other settings

- change search paths

... etc. without having to rewrite code.  Its a fine line and easy to step over.  If the program is too flexible then it becomes a burden to manage and can break easily.  Jello is very flexible but makes for a poor building foundation.

[dmfrazier]

Gotcha... I was afraid you were suggesting that ESP is necessary.  (I barely get by with my standard-issue SP.)

[dgorsman]

After a while, prognostication becomes second nature as a byproduct of constantly adding new features.  For a few years I dreaded hearing the phrase "Don't bother with that, we'll never use it.", followed a few weeks later by somebody else asking "Hey, is it possible to...?".  So now whenever I create something (whether its data, LISP, or work process) I always include a little thinking about how it might be used in the future and what work will be needed to implement it.