2009/8/16 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> However, it's not so spectacular: Attributes are simply old .NET stuff they
> ported to Win32. Seems they had to use a workaround through an attribute
> class.
Yes you have to create a descendant of TCustomAttribute when you want
to add any attribute to a class.
On 2009-08-17 01:20, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
An exact example would be very helpful. And the old "property mapping
to database field" doesn't could, because that's a design preference
and such mappings are not always appropriate or possible.
What I have in mind isn't quite an example but I'd l
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Very true! Now lets see what they say on the CodeGear newsgroups. :-)
Oh boy - I got them throwing there toys out the cot again. :-) I should
really stop doing that. ;-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
htt
2009/8/16 Paul Ishenin :
>
> Currently RTTI is very limited - using it you can only enumerate published
> members, learn their types and default values (for properties). Attributes
> completely eliminates limitations.
Explain limitations? Surely you do not want any foreign class to query
your priv
2009/8/16 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> That's what I meant with 'this varies on the storage back-end.'... :-)
I was agreeing with you. I simple wanted to explain it a bit clearer
to other readers. Many always assume RDBMS are used - which is not
always the case.
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2009/8/16 Michael Van Canneyt :
But that needs to be registered separately anyway, because this varies on
the storage back-end. The object-db mapping should never be in the object
itself, that is bad design.
+1
And what about classes that can
Marco van de Voort wrote:
I know what .NET uses it for, but that was not the question.
The question is why does this have to be solved using a language construct?
Why can't you simply register the Object-Relation mapping somewhere else?
Because it is a more natural way. I want to give full pr
2009/8/16 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> But that needs to be registered separately anyway, because this varies on
> the storage back-end. The object-db mapping should never be in the object
> itself, that is bad design.
+1
And what about classes that can be stored in various backends? For
example, in
2009/8/16 Paul Ishenin :
>
> Imagine you have a db framework which maps delphi classes to database
> tables. It reads class properties from the rtti and creates db tables
> automatically.
tiOPF has metadata classes to do just this, but in both cases they
work only well if you have quite simple des
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Paul Ishenin wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I never understood the need for it. RTTI is more than enough
for 99.99% of the cases.
Imagine you have a db framework which maps delphi classes to database tables.
It reads class properties from the rtti and creates db table
On 16 Aug 2009, at 12:26, Marco van de Voort wrote:
The question is why does this have to be solved using a language
construct?
Why can't you simply register the Object-Relation mapping somewhere
else?
What is the value of making it RTTI?
I guess it's grouping information that belongs to
In our previous episode, Paul Ishenin said:
> > I never understood the need for it. RTTI is more than enough
> > for 99.99% of the cases.
> Imagine you have a db framework which maps delphi classes to database
> tables. It reads class properties from the rtti and creates db tables
> automatically
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I never understood the need for it. RTTI is more than enough
for 99.99% of the cases.
Imagine you have a db framework which maps delphi classes to database
tables. It reads class properties from the rtti and creates db tables
automatically.
For example:
TStudent =
2009/8/16 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> I never understood the need for it. RTTI is more than enough
> for 99.99% of the cases.
I agree 100%.
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/
__
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
>
> It does, thank you.
>
> However, it's not so spectacular:
> Attributes are simply old .NET stuff they ported to Win32.
> Seems they had to use a workaround through an attribute class.
>
> I never understood the need for it. RTTI is more th
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2009/8/16 Michael Van Canneyt :
Website not accessible. Can you give us the gist of what is so interesting ?
Weird. Anyway, I placed the web page content in a OpenDocument Text
format available at:
http://opensoft.homeip.net/~graemeg/rtti_and_
2009/8/16 Marco van de Voort :
> I had that too, but later it worked. Now I've also seen the syntax, and I
> think sb should explain those Delphi devels that in C-like languages
> function modifiers come BEFORE the declaration, and in Pascal AFTER :-)
Very true! Now lets see what they say on the
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> > Just thought I would let you know...
> >
> > http://www.malcolmgroves.com/blog/?p=476
>
> Hm
>
> Website not accessible. Can you give us the gist of what is so interesting ?
I had that too, but later it worked. Now I've also seen the synta
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Just thought I would let you know...
http://www.malcolmgroves.com/blog/?p=476
This reminds me our previos discussion about property attributes:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Property_attributes
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin.
___
2009/8/16 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> Website not accessible. Can you give us the gist of what is so interesting ?
Weird. Anyway, I placed the web page content in a OpenDocument Text
format available at:
http://opensoft.homeip.net/~graemeg/rtti_and_attributes.odt
Hope that helps.
Regards,
- Gra
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> > Just thought I would let you know...
> >
> > http://www.malcolmgroves.com/blog/?p=476
>
> Hm
>
> Website not accessible. Can you give us the gist of what is so interesting ?
Has been hinted at several times, so I can make an educated guess
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Just thought I would let you know...
http://www.malcolmgroves.com/blog/?p=476
Hm
Website not accessible. Can you give us the gist of what is so interesting ?
Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc
22 matches
Mail list logo
