Hello Pritpal
I get it right?
GTWVG want to kill?
I have twenty-five systems in xHarbour + WVW all working very well, I'm
waiting for the incorporation of WVW in WVG
please tell me a joke and that the first early April ...
I think I will cry ...
Pritpal Bedi escreveu:
Hello Everybody
Back from a vacation...
I read all messages piled so large and have
come-up one significant note that GTWVG has been
scheduled to be REMOVED from Harbour repository
after 4 years of its presence here and about 7 years
presence on xHarbour.
The reasons put forth can be presented as such:
1) It is a highly win specific lib with no counterparts on other
platforms. Your prg code will be win only.
It was known from the DAY ONE.
How funny it is to conclude that it had a relevance THEN and
is irrelevant NOW...
2) Plus it's x86 specific
This is one part I am not conversant with. Probably it is
ActiveX Events Management code which draws this specific attenstion.
Even if it is x86, what does it stops to be usable,
x86 has many more years of life span I believe.
3) was never successfully tested on ce
This statement is valid for few weeks before, not now.
If used as pure consol it is not different then GTWVT in any
manner. I just commented out code which was not compiling
for WinCE. Now it compiles fine, so ...
4) x64
This is something a future. And am confident that the way
we are moving, it will not be difficult to port a little code,
probably wvgcallb.c, to that platform or we can always drop Active-X
for x64 builds just guarding this .c with a define.
5) unicode
I suppose it has not been tried recently. I always compile it with
UNICODE and it is working flawless without even a single memleak or so.
6) uses internals, non ansi c code,
Th is one area I am not conversant with. Just point out what
this code is and I am eagerly willing to fix it.
7) breaks core and other contrib namespaces
This is totally a misleading statement. Where does it collides
with other libs ? And it is not something which becomes a
potent cause of its abolishan.
8) has redundant winapi parts, code non portable between c compilers.
Again a non-sense statement. Sorry if I am rude. I already gave
my node that it will be transferred to hbwin.lib as and when time
will permit.
9) Group is spending huge amount of time on just to create clean builds,
with
minimal hope the large codebase will ever be clean enough for a piece
of mind and future releases.
This is all about an Open-source. You contribute sonmething
with a hope that others will enhance it. It is the bottom line.
I am sorry if this lib pushed someone a little bit more...
But one always have options to divert his/her efforts to
whatever he likes.
Why there is a minimal hope? If a lib is consistently maintained and
is in production, this itself is a HOPE.
10) Since there is seldom any bug reports, it is suspected to have
a large amount of active users.
Do some code have to be buggy to be recognized as CORRECT?
If no user reports any bug does it implies that there are no users.
For that matter how many users speak on this group? Max 10-15.
For whom who are not aware I testify that GTWVG is in production
for over 250+ installations with MT and multi-windows, without even
a single GPF and memleak, with UNICODE enabled , with semi GUI modal,
with pure GUI modal ( Xbase++ implementation ). What elese is required
it to be a success.
11) We should focus on QT. We certainly cannot focus on both.
True. But untill something usable comes up in QT, on which front
I have made some progress, we have to stay with GTWVG. Also GTWVG is
needed as references for QT port.
12) The code does not compiles with many win compilers.
It compiles ( and runs ) fine with :
BCC55
BCC58
MSVC 2008
WATCOM
PELLESC
MINGW
What other compilers this statement refers to?
From the whole input I could conclude that the matter
more ferefs to x64 builds than x86 ones. If true, I suppose
we can live with x86 for some more time and jump to
x64 excluding GTWVG from default builds.
I need groups viewpoint if it is valid to REMOVE GTWVG from SVN
or to keep it. I am feeling a bit dejected as well and wish to have
a clear verdict. It will be helpful for me to concentrate on some
other corners of my life if it happens so.
Regards
Pritpal Bedi
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
