On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:22:54 +0100 (CET) > Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Paul Ishenin wrote: > > > > > Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > > No-one. The DLL must be recompiled anyway if you use packages. > > > > And this is also true if you use interfaces, so using interfaces > > > > will not solve the problem you mention. > > > > > > > Only if compiler (who provides package system) changed. Ide changes > > > will not cause recompilation of plugins in case of interfaces. > > > > Nono. If the LCL/FCL/RTL changed or whatever, then you must recompile > > the DLL as well, since it uses these packages. This will IMHO be 99% > > of all realistic cases. > > > > If *only* the IDE interface changed, and only that, then you are > > right. But in my opinion this will be less than 1% of all possible > > cases. So the decision to use interfaces to cover this 1% is IMHO not > > founded. > > > > It's like in Delphi. > > With each release and update of Delphi, you must recompile all > > design/runtime packages, whether the IDE interface changed or not. > > (and it uses interfaces too) > > Conclusion: > > A plugin without source will only work with a specific lazarus release > OR if the plugin does not share any code. > > A plugin with source can be simply recompiled. > > Interfaces can be more flexible when extending IDE classes. At the > moment there are only few classes where this makes sense. Maybe these > should be changed to interfaces. But the rest can remain classes. > > Correct? Seems correct to me. Whether you should actually do this change is another matter. I think there are more useful things that should be done. But you do the work, so you decide. Open source at it's best :-) Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
