Board index » delphi » Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2


2005-05-15 09:50:27 AM
delphi12
Chris Burrows writes:
Quote
It's like waiting to buy the ideal PC.
Good point.
I am not absolutely sure what is meant with "winforms is legacy".
--
Ingvar Nilsen
www.ingvarius.com
 
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

marc hoffman <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
Quote

Ignorance is Strength.
I'm trying to figure out how to interpret that statement in a positive light,
and so far the task eludes me. Could you elaborate?
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader-BETA 0.9.4.630
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Quote
I'm trying to figure out how to interpret that statement in a positive
light,
and so far the task eludes me. Could you elaborate?
I think he was responding in kind to Markus's waffle with his own pointless
statement.
Oliver
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Ingvar Nilsen writes:
Quote
Chris Burrows writes:

>It's like waiting to buy the ideal PC.


Good point.
I am not absolutely sure what is meant with "winforms is legacy".
Let me hazard a guess:
Microsoft has effectively stopped *enhancing* the WinForms architecture.
Like it has for Win32, COM/ATL and OLEDB, the framework will *always* be
supported (bug-fixed etc) on different Windows OS's, but no *new*
framework concepts are to expected from it. Legacy.
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Quote
>I'm trying to figure out how to interpret that statement in a positive
>light,
>and so far the task eludes me. Could you elaborate?

I think he was responding in kind to Markus's waffle with his own
pointless
statement.
It sounded to me as if the phrase and sentiment Marc was aiming for might
have been 'ignorance is bliss'.
I'm not sure I agree with Marc on this one though. The picture I get is that
winforms and the next-best-thing with avalon and xaml are not going to be
compatable. MS are not going to get rid of WinForms, but its not going to be
the latest/greatest way forward, from Longhorn on. Winforms is just going to
be there for backward compatibility.
But since Marc is presumably much better informed than me on MS products and
plans through his involvement with MS betas and partner programs, some links
to some MS roadmap articles stating any alternative view/direction for the
future of winforms would be handy/educational for me.
Lauchlan Mackinnon
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

"borland" <chrisbrooksbank___())at _gmaildotcom>a écrit dans le message de
Please change your "from" address, you should not use borland.
Joanna
Consultant Software Engineer
TeamBUG support for UK-BUG
TeamMM support for ModelMaker
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

borland writes:
Quote
However XAML seems to offer much more.

As I remember DFM was restricted to declaring UserInterface components and
their propertys on a form whereas XAML may be used for more than just UI.
Yes, it lacks "action semantics" or quite simply: code. DFM, AFAIK,
is a layout manager. (I stand to be corrected!)
I've been fooling around with the very same possibilities with my
current Delphi project:
1) Separation of control layout semantics from ...
2) User Action Semantics (~events)
While I am not really interested in the full spectrum of the event-based
architecture of VCL, I /am/ interested in the non-reducible action
semantics of a typical database application. Specifically, the one
we are doing.
From there, I have been able to create a custom UI markup definition (in
XML format) that contains UI control data as well as Object Pascal
syntax with the aid of JVCL's JvInterpreter components. So, based on
a sort of renderer, I read the UI markup to produce the final form and
then hook the events with the aid of JvInterpreter.
What I have never tried is the possiblity of using the DFM layout as the
layout manager. (I never thought that was possible! LOL.)
So, I would appreciate any good examples on using DFM to load a form at
runtime.
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Quote
Ignorance is Strength.
Ignorance is Strength.
Sure, when ignoring a mediocre technology like WinForms, ignorance is indeed
a strength.
It never happend to me that I had to watch a Delphi form redraw its
components no matter how complex the design is, with WinForms I can - even
with simpler designs. (Yes, I know. This never happens on your computer,
blabla, but that is an answer _my_ customers won't accept)
Thus I am happy that I have a choice as Delphi developer.
I don't have to promote .NET or pretend that WinForms is a state of the art
technology with a future for whatever reasons. I am sure MS won't ditch their
SlowForms completely, but I am convinced that it'll be sooner a legacy than
some .NET evangelists predict for Win32 apps.
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Lauchlan,
Quote
It sounded to me as if the phrase and sentiment Marc was aiming for might
have been 'ignorance is bliss'.
Actually, the quote i used predates the Wachowski borther's variation by ca
50 years ;)
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] writes:
Quote

Er... the Firebird that used XUL is now called Firefox, and is not the
same as the Interbase clone. Actually, Firefox was named that way because
of the name clash.
of course you are right! my mistake.. I was thinking Firefox but wrote
Firebird %) Thanks for correcting me :)
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Günther Schoch writes:
Quote

I will have a try but still I'd love to get some semi offical
statement by borland.

don't hold your breath, Borland never tells that far in advance what
they are planning. Borland supports Winforms and I am 99% sure they will
support Avalon if there is a demand for it - but that is many many years
from now..
siegs
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

There is something that bothers me. Existing Delphi applications IMO are
easy to reverse engineer (at least extract the DFM portion of EXE). And
I certainly hate others being able to easily see
object Button1:TButton
.....
OnClick=Button1Click
end
I know that decoupling real code from UI design adds tremendous
flexibility in application design. I also am aware, that there are ways
of protecting critical (from security aspect) parts of your code.
However, it really annoys me if anyone (and I don't just mean crackers,
but competitors in particular) is able to just open a XML file at have a
look at how I implemented "action semantics".
At first, it was VCL, then Reflection and now comes XAML. All these are
wonderful, but I think we all should keep in mind the there is always
the dark side of the moon.
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

Abdullah Kauchali writes:
..
effectively stopped *enhancing* the WinForms architecture.
Quote
Like it has for Win32,
..
Would Win64 not be an 'enhancement' of Win32 or is it just a recompile
of the win32 source 'as is'?
since dotNet currently runs on Win32, it would be strange if Ms are not
currently improving it too?
Then again anything M$ announces or produces can considered legacy, the
way they keep on changing everthing every few years or less. I do not
want to be a slave of that! Thank goodness for Delphi and Kylix.
siegs
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

At 12:49:54, 15.05.2005, siegfriedn writes:
Quote
Abdullah Kauchali writes:
..

effectively stopped enhancing the WinForms architecture.
>Like it has for Win32,
..

Would Win64 not be an 'enhancement' of Win32 or is it just a recompile
of the win32 source 'as is'?
This was discussed before. It will not just be a recompile. You will have
to identify all places where you simply assumed that pointers and
integers have the same size, or at least have a specific size, and then
test very thoroughly what happens if you correct the code that did that.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
"The only rules comedy can tolerate are those of taste, and the only
limitations those of libel." -- James Thurber (1894-1961)
 

Re: Avalon + Delphi + .NET V2

At 12:46:09, 15.05.2005, Kostas Terzides writes:
Quote
There is something that bothers me. Existing Delphi applications IMO
are easy to reverse engineer (at least extract the DFM portion of EXE).
Yes, but how bad is that? After all, the DFM part is often visible on
screen anyway.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
"I've always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been
more specific." -- George Carlin