> > * For example apps deployable via both offline media and > network URLs > > or webpages, that can check for updates automatically or > manually and > > autoupdate from the web, > > You don´t need .NET for that. Just write a component that > automatically updates an app. Send the component to Lazarus > Code and Component repository on a nice license such as > Modifyed LGPL and everyone will be able to use it.
That's what I mean, I'd have to implement ClickOnce myself, plus the application wouldn't run inside webpages too as can do with .NET (unless I play arround a lot with ActiveX controls and Netscape plugins and make apps generated by Lazarus somehow draw their GUI at other target window, plus redirect window events to the hidden apps etc. [too much fuss]). With current version of Lazarus I don't even think I can build an ActiveX control, so I couldn't build apps that work both as ActiveX control and normal applications. Anyway it's just one example of things I'd like to use if Lazarus was .NETified > > running both offline as desktop apps and online from inside > webpages, > > all the stuff that OneClick deployment for example does > (without the > > fuss that one would have to go into to do it with other platforms). > > We don´t need .NET for that. We are planning to write a > IntraWeb-like widgetset for Lazarus. > > And will be even better then IntraWeb as you won´t need to > add different component, just recompile the existing app for > web-mode. It should run on all platforms supported by Apache > or LNet, depending on the implementation. That's nice to have, but the thing is I'll need to use those widgets only, and not normal controls from what I understand (that is it would be hard to webify existing apps) > > * Managed plugins for applications (say for the recent versions of > > Office for example) > > Does office allow non-managed plugins? If not, then you > reached something you cannot do with Free Pascal today. I could do by making a managed plugin say in C# that loads non-managed "sub-plugins" :o) and exposes to them parts of the managed API as flat calls (a procedural facade for the managed API). Would be hard if impossible to make it generic and would need work every time to enhance the façade, plus learning time for a person that wants to convert samples they find for the managed API to that flat façade. There may be more OOP ways too, but not easy ones I can think of > > * Any commercial app for .NET in Object Pascal without > buying an IDE > > (Chorme and Borland tools aren't free for commercial use) > or moving to > > other language > > Here you reach almost a contradiction, because to add .NET > support for Free Pascal you will need to invest on it anyway. > Maybe not money, but at least lot´s of time, so it may be > much cheaper to buy Chrome and Delphi.NET (unless you need > 100s of copies). If I make it myself alone I'll need to invest lot of time (cost). If many people do it, will invest less each one. However I'm afraid we get back to the old talk about Pascal not being popular and universities promoting C (argh) and Java instead (in University of Patras, Computer Engineering and Informatics where I got my diploma, we got Pascal for structured programming at the 1st year, then C and assembly and then C++ etc., but now they removed Pascal and they teach both C and Java at the first year intead at the same time). Having a .NET target for Lazarus (and maybe a JVM one too) would help a bit promoting it into university classes, but the only way might be to make an IDE that is language-agnostic (even if built itself with FPC or whatever), similar to what MS did with VS.net. That way they'd get Object Pascal installed too on their machines together with the C or Java they like and people would be able to start again playing arround with Pascal. This is far dream maybe impossible though, the Eclipse guys are more into that generic IDE path, but have at least IBM behind them > > > I think you can use Delphi IDE to write a DLL that exports a > > > procedural interface to whatever you want to do. > > > > What do you mean with this? Do you have an example? > > No, I only read on borland newsgroups that this is possible. What I mean is that I didn't understand the phrase above. I think I got what you say now. Yes, you can wrap a managed OOP API with a procedural frontend and expose it as a standard DLL for third parties to call from native code (the flat façade I say above). No automated tool to do that I think, plus would still need one to learn to program against the flat façade (and maybe will need another tool to convert OOP codesamples to the flat façade API [maybe not that hard to do if the sample is written for a .NET compiler that emits CodeDOM model for the code - most major ones do after all]) ---------------- George Birbilis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Computer & Informatics Engineer Microsoft MVP J# for 2004-2006 Borland "Spirit of Delphi" ++ QuickTime, Delphi, ActiveX, .NET components ++ http://www.kagi.com/birbilis ++ Robotics ++ http://www.mech.upatras.gr/~Robotics http://www.mech.upatras.gr/~robgroup _____ avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0644-0, 30/10/2006 Tested on: 31/10/2006 11:46:23 ìì avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
