On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:12 AM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho < felipemonteiro.carva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt > <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote: > > It has always pained me to see lazarus' LCL re-introducing the Windows > API > > to such an extent. > > > > If I was planning Lazarus' future (for clarity: I am not), I would lay > out > > for the LCL: > > People need those routines to port component packages mostly. The > Windows API routines are not an end in themselves and they are also > not to be removed (without generating a lot of trouble for people that > need them). The solution is much simpler and elegant: simply provide > as well a native LCL class or extension of existing classes to also > implement the functionality natively in the LCL as well. This can > internally refer to the WinAPI routines, so we don't need 2 > implementations of the same thing while exposing 2 APIs for it. > > Yes that help me to port many component to Lazarus. But it can make spicial unit only for those porting components, and for who have more time can replace the function taht call API function to call LCL function API FillRect(DC: HDC;.... to LCL FillRect(Canvas: TCanvas;.... to Object Canvas.FillRect(R:TR...) Ok i am very slow writing in english :) -- Zaher Dirkey
-- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
