Hi all,
Some of you already know that I work on more web-components for
Lazarus/Freepascal.
I've created a new package (zipfile) which contains several packages
which adds extra web-functionality too Lazarus.
You can find the package here:
http://services.cnoc.nl/lazarus/index/fclweb
Offcourse
Hello Lazarus-List,
Sunday, January 24, 2010, 5:21:50 PM, you wrote:
JvdS> Some of you already know that I work on more web-components for
JvdS> Lazarus/Freepascal.
JvdS> I've created a new package (zipfile) which contains several packages
JvdS> which adds extra web-functionality too Lazarus.
O
WebDesign: Adds a new 'form'-designer to Lazarus-trunk. It can be used
to build websites. On Win32 there can be a live 'preview' of the
website, when Gecko/XULRunner is installed on the system. For it to
work
the fcl-web_joost branch of Freepascal has to be used. (Or copy the
files in packages/
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 17:30 +0700, Bee Jay wrote:
> > WebDesign: Adds a new 'form'-designer to Lazarus-trunk. It can be used
> > to build websites. On Win32 there can be a live 'preview' of the
> > website, when Gecko/XULRunner is installed on the system. For it to
> > work
> > the fcl-web_joost
For it to work the fcl-web_joost branch of Freepascal has to be
used. (Or copy the
files in packages/fcl-web onto your checkout of fpc-trunk)
Can it be just merged with current fpc-trunk so we don't need to mess
around with our svn copy? It could also be included as part of
official fcl-we
Bee Jay wrote:
>
> Can it be just merged with current fpc-trunk so we don't need to mess
> around with our svn copy?
I doubt that, but the solution would have been so much simpler if we all
used Git. ;-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 09:17 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Bee Jay wrote:
> >
> > Can it be just merged with current fpc-trunk so we don't need to mess
> > around with our svn copy?
>
> I doubt that, but the solution would have been so much simpler if we all
> used Git. ;-)
That has nothing
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 12:23 +0700, Bee Jay wrote:
> > For it to work the fcl-web_joost branch of Freepascal has to be
> > used. (Or copy the
> > files in packages/fcl-web onto your checkout of fpc-trunk)
>
> Can it be just merged with current fpc-trunk so we don't need to mess
> around with ou
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
>
> That has nothing to do with it. (With Git you would also have to use a
> local command to use this branch/part)
I was simply enlightening Bee that I know how he feels and that it would
have been easier (less effort) to test various branches with a tool that
supports
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
>
> EmbWeb: Adds to possibility to FCL-Web to create webapplications with a
> build-in webserver, based in LNet which is also included. Usefull for
> debugging
I'm very interested in this feature. I have been looking at nYume (web
server implemented in less that 1000 li
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
That has nothing to do with it. (With Git you would also have to use a
local command to use this branch/part)
[cut]
Joost, I did not mean to offend you or your work in any way, I'm simply
wanted to point out what
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 10:24 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> >
> > That has nothing to do with it. (With Git you would also have to use a
> > local command to use this branch/part)
>
> I was simply enlightening Bee that I know how he feels and that it would
> have be
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 10:30 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> >
> > EmbWeb: Adds to possibility to FCL-Web to create webapplications with a
> > build-in webserver, based in LNet which is also included. Usefull for
> > debugging
>
> I'm very interested in this feature.
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
EmbWeb: Adds to possibility to FCL-Web to create webapplications with a
build-in webserver, based in LNet which is also included. Usefull for
debugging
I'm very interested in this feature. I have been looking at nYume
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> lnet is event-driven, nYume is not. nYume is multithreaded, and
> - to my taste - conceptually simpler.
>
> You may also want to try the HTTPServ from synapse, nYume is conceptually
> similar to that.
Thanks. I made a note of all these options and will evaluate a
That's about it. It will use Qooxdoo-calls for the server-events. You
can add more, offcourse... (does Qooxdoo also use some sort of
'readyscript'?)
My main reason using ExtPascal and this new fcl-web is I'm too lazy to
study JS programming and getting my hand dirty of it. Every JS
framework
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Bee Jay wrote:
That's about it. It will use Qooxdoo-calls for the server-events. You
can add more, offcourse... (does Qooxdoo also use some sort of
'readyscript'?)
My main reason using ExtPascal and this new fcl-web is I'm too lazy to study
JS programming and getting my
Hello Lazarus-List,
Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 9:56:14 AM, you wrote:
>> Do you know how LNet's HTTP server compares to nYume?
MVC> lnet is event-driven, nYume is not. nYume is multithreaded, and
MVC> - to my taste - conceptually simpler.
MVC> You may also want to try the HTTPServ from synapse, n
On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 09:00 +0100, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 12:23 +0700, Bee Jay wrote:
> > > For it to work the fcl-web_joost branch of Freepascal has to be
> > > used. (Or copy the
> > > files in packages/fcl-web onto your checkout of fpc-trunk)
> >
> > Can it be just
I finally decided to bite the bullet, and to dump the idea of
extpascal and
the likes for the moment. All these conversion tools have the same
problems:
- Always behind the latest versions of the corresponding JS toolkits.
- They only do a subset of what the JS toolkits support natively.
Yes
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Bee Jay wrote:
I finally decided to bite the bullet, and to dump the idea of extpascal and
the likes for the moment. All these conversion tools have the same
problems:
- Always behind the latest versions of the corresponding JS toolkits.
- They only do a subset of what t
W dniu 2010-01-26 09:30, Graeme Geldenhuys pisze:
Joost van der Sluis wrote:
EmbWeb: Adds to possibility to FCL-Web to create webapplications with a
build-in webserver, based in LNet which is also included. Usefull for
debugging
I'm very interested in this feature. I have been looking
For ExtPascal, it was true for every page I wanted to make, so that
is far
over 5% :(
Yes, because ExtPascal is just a wrapper for ExtJS classes. What I
meant in the previous email is the existence of a pascal to JS
compiler, like Morfik's JST, will do the job. I prefer "compiler" term
i
Am 26.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Bee Jay:
>> That's about it. It will use Qooxdoo-calls for the server-events. You
>> can add more, offcourse... (does Qooxdoo also use some sort of
>> 'readyscript'?)
>
> My main reason using ExtPascal and this new fcl-web is I'm too lazy to
> study JS programming and
Take a look at HaXe (haxe.org) - HaXe is a dynamic but type safe
programming language, which is much better suited for Web programming
than ExtPascal (in my opinion).
I've heard about it and wasn't interested since it doesn't support
pascal. :P
Since HaXe has many targets (JavaScript,
Flash
Bee Jay wrote:
I finally decided to bite the bullet, and to dump the idea of
extpascal and
the likes for the moment. All these conversion tools have the same
problems:
- Always behind the latest versions of the corresponding JS toolkits.
- They only do a subset of what the JS toolkits support n
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Lee Jenkins wrote:
Bee Jay wrote:
I finally decided to bite the bullet, and to dump the idea of extpascal
and
the likes for the moment. All these conversion tools have the same
problems:
- Always behind the latest versions of the corresponding JS toolkits.
- They only d
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Lee Jenkins wrote:
Another thing that I've been careful to do and I think is important is
abstracting the widget-framework away from any particular protocol or
transport framework so I could easily compile it to stand alone,
apache_mod or ISA
OK, let me try and sum up this message thread. We have the following
technologies/projects/options available:
* FCL-Web
* fpWeb
* jQuery
* Gecko/XULRunner
* ExtJS
* ExtPas
* ExtPascal <- not sure if this is the same as previous option
* Qooxdoo
* SOAP
* WST
* ExtDirect
* Morfik
* Morfik's JST
*
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
OK, let me try and sum up this message thread. We have the following
technologies/projects/options available:
* FCL-Web
* fpWeb
They are the same thing. fpWeb is a unit in fcl-web.
* jQuery
* Gecko/XULRunner
* ExtJS
* ExtPas
* ExtPascal <- n
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> set the trends. After 1 day of testing the differences in IE and
> Firefox already drove me mad :(
Exactly my issue.
> My boss was actually very surprised that there are no standards
> in web development. It is not what he was told by other people :-)
Gee wiz, wher
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 08:44 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> OK, let me try and sum up this message thread. We have the following
> technologies/projects/options available:
> * FCL-Web
> * fpWeb
To be clear, those are the same.
> I think I got them all, and these are just the ones mentioned in
Am 27.01.2010 17:30, schrieb Bee Jay:
>> Take a look at HaXe (haxe.org) - HaXe is a dynamic but type safe
>> programming language, which is much better suited for Web programming
>> than ExtPascal (in my opinion).
>
> I've heard about it and wasn't interested since it doesn't support
> pascal. :P
I use:
- pascal and HaXe/Neko for the server
- HaXe for the rest
Why should I learn another new language while I could do all those
things in pascal? Except for using external existing JS library.
That's why I'm very interested with what Michael, Joost and Mattias
doing currently.
because
El jue, 28-01-2010 a las 13:56 +0100, Michael Van Canneyt escribió:
> I use pascal since 30 years for my every day development
> > and love it - but IMHO for web programming, it is more productive to
> > have a dynamic language - it is the nature of websites
That could be true (not in my case) if
Adrian Veith wrote:
> environments - I use pascal since 30 years for my every day development
> and love it - but IMHO for web programming, it is more productive to
> have a dynamic language - it is the nature of websites. (Free)-Pascal
A matter of taste I guess. I use pure Object Pascal to write
W dniu 2010-01-28 14:22, Graeme Geldenhuys pisze:
Adrian Veith wrote:
environments - I use pascal since 30 years for my every day development
and love it - but IMHO for web programming, it is more productive to
have a dynamic language - it is the nature of websites. (Free)-Pascal
A ma
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 01:30:28PM +0100, Adrian Veith wrote:
> because Pascal is not as well suited for dynamic languages and
> environments -
It has variant, dispatch interfaces, and can interface with such
environments if need be. But the question is if that is really neccessary or
applicable
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 01:30:28PM +0100, Adrian Veith wrote:
>
>> because Pascal is not as well suited for dynamic languages and
>> environments -
Do you mean scripting languages like JavaScript? If this is the case
than you should kn
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 08:57:56AM -0600, Andrew Brunner wrote:
> >> because Pascal is not as well suited for dynamic languages and
> >> environments -
>
> Do you mean scripting languages like JavaScript? If this is the case
> than you should know that there are pascal based scripting utilities
>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> My boss was actually very surprised that there are no standards
> in web development. It is not what he was told by other people :-)
There are standards from W3C and even a validator: http://validator.w3.org/
But the only website whic
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
> A matter of taste I guess. I use pure Object Pascal to write all our CGI
> applications. Our CGI apps do things PHP, JavaScript etc can only dream of!
> Not to mention I have the full RTL, lots of the FCL and other non-GUI
> frameworks a
El jue, 28-01-2010 a las 13:37 -0200, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
escribió:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
> wrote:
> > A matter of taste I guess. I use pure Object Pascal to write all our CGI
> > applications. Our CGI apps do things PHP, JavaScript etc can only dream of!
>
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
My boss was actually very surprised that there are no standards
in web development. It is not what he was told by other people :-)
There are standards from W3C and even a val
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
El jue, 28-01-2010 a las 13:37 -0200, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
escribió:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
A matter of taste I guess. I use pure Object Pascal to write all our CGI
applications. Our CGI apps do things P
It's not like Morfik - to write an wrapper, for an existing JS library
is a matter of one or two hours - I did it for Google-Maps and JQuery.
Have you tried to write a wrapper for ExtJS or any other advanced JS
library that provides advanced UI widgets with server side data
binding, not just
Don't you get annoyed putting the HTML inside function calls? This is
what has put me off from cgi ... I usually have a lot more HTML then
code, so I actually would like to have a HTML document where I put
some Pascal inside, like PHP. With all my huge amount of HTML inside
function calls it get's
On 28 January 2010 17:37, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
wrote:
...snip...
> what has put me off from cgi ... I usually have a lot more HTML then
> code, so I actually would like to have a HTML document where I put
In our case it is the opposite. We have a LOT more OP code in the
background than HTM
On 28 January 2010 20:55, Bee Jay wrote:
>
> It's not the problem of pascal nor cgi, it's the problem of your coding
> style and management. Use templates, MVC or MVP, separate logic from UI,
> etc. I think you should have known all those things. :)
100% correct. We have a couple hundred business
I think you exaggerate it a bit.
* FCL-Web
* fpWeb
Both are same thing: fcl-web = fpweb
* ExtPas
* ExtPascal <- not sure if this is the same as previous option
Again, both are same thing.
* Morfik
* Morfik's JST
JST is an integrated part or Morfik.
I think I got them all, and these
My boss was actually very surprised that there are no standards
in web development. It is not what he was told by other people :-)
Standards does exist. It's the problem of the implementator,
especially the browser makers, who each thinks a smart a** and ignore
those standards.
Gee wiz, w
Bee Jay wrote:
>
> I don't think it's fair to bash web development while in fact it also
> happens on desktop development. I'm just trying to be fair and
> objective. :)
Point taken. I hope you noticed the smiley face too, in my reply where I
listed all the web technologies? This message thre
Lee Jenkins wrote:
Bee Jay wrote:
It would be better if the server side interface is plain and
independent to any JS framework API. The interface result then could
be "translated" to any client side API, or SOAP, or WST, or whatever
is required format by the client side framework using some ki
53 matches
Mail list logo
