In our previous episode, michael.vancann...@wisa.be said: > >> unless we > >> include > >> lnet in FPC. > > > > Well, fppkg uses it for years already, see utils/fppkg/lnet > > I am aware of that, but that is an old unmaintained copy, > and that is exactly the problem: > There are 2 parallel implementations. > > I have no problem with including it in FPC, but it's not my call...
I will no longer object, the earlier remark was an attempt at humor(because I know how much you guys fear importing Indy into the tree). I haven't been able to further the indy cause much lately, so it would be a bit infantile to keep blocking this. So I won't any longer. But I will use this moment to reiterate my reasoning, why I don't like lnet to be incorporated into the tree. (compared to Indy or Synapse, don't care which) That is that it is incomplete (only a few protocols), and from what I've seen from it requires quite some knowledge to operate. It is not something I'd like to advocate to users, at least not when there are better alternatives. In short, it seems its only virtue seems to be its small size. Florian: > Well, fppkg uses it for years already, see utils/fppkg/lnet Under the condition that it was only for embedded use in fppkg. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
