2012/10/24 Graeme Geldenhuys <gra...@geldenhuys.co.uk> > On 2012-10-24 07:52, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote: > > However, given the total lack of documentation, it is hard to say. > > +1 > > I had a look too, the Embarcadero website isn't much help. > > First some considerations:
- Initially i questioned the fpc obsever support, now i see as a good implementation - I think Delphi compatility important - We don't have much info about the Delphi implementation since is not properly documented (i would bet it was introduced to support the Live Bindings) When i asked, i did not have any preference of any interface, the only option that i would have objections was 3 (two implementations) since would have overlapping features with possible overhead (two observer lists per component?) at base classes Given that fpc one is good enough, and Delphi one is at minimal obscure, i would consider break the "Delphi compatibility/feature parity" and stay with fpc one. Of course, if the Delphi one shows somehow to be technically better it's also a option to stay with it. But never the two. Regarding Delphi compatibility, currently fpc already lacks much features in areas like attributes, anounimous methods, generics, interfaces, unicode and some will never land at fpc. This can be (or not) a start point to depart from playing "Delphi catch up" at all cost and port only the features that matches the fpc direction (whatever it is) Luiz
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel