--- El sáb 29-may-10, dmitry boyarintsev skalogryz.li...@gmail.com escribió:
So, what unit should an IDE extension and/or LCL components
use?
xmlconf: is used by LazReport
xmlcfg: is used by Grids, XMLPropStorage and the packager
(RegisterFCL.pas, but not sure why)
Laz_XMLCfg: is used
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:35:24PM +0200, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
dmitry boyarintsev schrieb:
I must agree that marking the unit as deprecated should be enough.
It won't break the existing code using the old file, but would also
notify maintainers that they should update.
I'd move
On Sat, 29 May 2010 19:41:52 +0300
patspiper patspi...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 05/29/2010 09:35 AM, dmitry boyarintsev wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled there're 2 units in fpc-xml: xmlcfg and xmlconfg
Both of them declare TXMLConfig class. The interfaces of both classes
seems to be quite identical.
Hello Developers
I'm a bit puzzled there're 2 units in fpc-xml: xmlcfg and xmlconfg
Both of them declare TXMLConfig class. The interfaces of both classes
seems to be quite identical.
If one of them is up-kept for backward compatibility, shouldn't it be like:
[code]
unit
xmlcfg;
uses
dmitry boyarintsev wrote:
Hello Developers
I'm a bit puzzled there're 2 units in fpc-xml: xmlcfg and xmlconfg
xmlconf is the actual one. xmlcfg is unable to properly handle non-ascii data.
Maybe it's a good idea to declare it deprecated by now.
Both of them declare TXMLConfig class. The
On 05/29/2010 09:35 AM, dmitry boyarintsev wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled there're 2 units in fpc-xml: xmlcfg and xmlconfg
Both of them declare TXMLConfig class. The interfaces of both classes
seems to be quite identical.
snip
LCL also provides its own TXMLConfig at Laz_XMLCfg (with the same
Hello Dmitry,
Shouldn't this thread be on fpc-devel?
And also, I would recommend removing the obsolete unit completely.
thanks,
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
Thanks Sergei for the explanation.
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
felipemonteiro.carva...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't this thread be on fpc-devel?
Yes and no. I was interested about what to use for LCL development.
Also attn at the subject also denotes to fpc-devel
dmitry boyarintsev schrieb:
And also, I would recommend removing the obsolete unit completely.
I must agree that marking the unit as deprecated should be enough.
It won't break the existing code using the old file, but would also
notify maintainers that they should update.
I'd move such
