Delphi 4 TTabSheet.TabVisible property
Edwin Harrell
I know, your probably going to say that TPageControl is not *designed* to be
used like this, however, it is obvious that people do use it in the manner
(from the complaints about D4's new behaviour).
As discussed in my posting of 13th February, the new D4 behaviour where the
tabs are *always* visible at design time is causing he considerable
problems. So much so that I cannot port my firms main application to D4.
My last posting *fizzled out* without providing a solution to my problem.
Is there a solution whereby I can implement the D3 behaviour in D4?
OR
How can I take this further with Inprise (or Borland.com) and determine when
a fix will be available? I am not prepared to *wait* and *pay* for this in
D5.
I really enjoyed chatting to the TeamB er's in my last posting<g>, however,
I have to get my applications ported to D4 and solving this problem rather
than talking about it is essential to facilitate this.
EDWIN HARRELL
Systems Architect
iDOiNK Systems
edwin....@idoink.com
Mike Orriss
> As discussed in my posting of 13th February, the new D4 behaviour where the
> tabs are *always* visible at design time is causing he considerable
> problems. So much so that I cannot port my firms main application to D4.
>
Isn't setting the TabHeight to something small a sufficient work-around?
Mike Orriss (m...@3kcc.co.uk)
http://www.3kcc.co.uk/notetree.htm
Mark Reichert
>Is there a solution whereby I can implement the D3 behaviour in D4?
What Mike Orriss said.
I only solved it by setting the Tab height and width to 1 so that they
become virtually nonvisible.
I had the exact same complaint months ago and had to figure that out on my
own. Apparently they think people who use listboxes to navigate
pagecontrols don't deserve help. Or to be kinder, my request was so
unexpected, they'd never thought of a workaround.
--
Please respond only in the newsgroup. I will not respond
to newgroup messages by e-mail.
Edwin Harrell
>>Isn't setting the TabHeight to something small a sufficient work-around?<<
The whole point of 'Visual' tools is that you can see what your application
looks like at design time.
When I counted all the forms and the page controls on them over the systems
I wanted to change, I came to the conclusion that it was simply not worth
the effort.
What I need is the ability to change the behaviour of the TPageControl back
to the way it operates in D3 (or provides and option). TeamB have washed
there hands of the problem (Peter Below just keeps repeating that there is
not *fix*, Wayne Niddery says that the behaviour in D4 is a fix and that
D3/D2 behaviour was a bug), Borland are just ignoring their customers, its
starting to really anger me.
There is another post today in the
'borland.public.delphi.vcl.components.using' complaining about the
behaviour, I don't understand why they don't do something about it, It's is
really pissing people off.
This really shows the holes in the TeamB system, Borland seem to be hiding
behind them and are simply choosing not to address this issue.
All I want is some information on how to take this further OR someone from
Borland to explain in this forum why they are not doing something about
Edwin Harrell
workaround.<<
No Mark, its just appaling customer service, they are lucky they have any
customers left.
David Farrell-Garcia
and I have used TNotebook in many many areas of my applications.
I am confused about why you would want your design time TNotebook component
to not show all pages, visible or not. I would only want to delete the
pages at runtime that I did not want to show but I definetly would want them
to show at runtime. What exactly "New Behaviour" are you referring to? I
have not seen your original posts.
I am bewildered about why this is a desirable feature. I mean if you
inherit a form and make some of the original buttons not visible they still
show in the IDE. Yikes, what if you accidently made a button not visible
in the IDE. Would it be lost forever????
David
Edwin Harrell wrote in message <7bml20$4q...@forums.borland.com>...
Edwin Harrell
Mike Orriss
> The whole point of 'Visual' tools is that you can see what your application
> looks like at design time.
>
With a small value (I work with TabHeight=6), you can as near as makes no
difference.
I am bemused by your attitude - this behaviour is a very small molehill in a
very large mountain.
FWIW, I have already submitted a suggestion to Borland that an additional
TPageControl property is added so that visual display of tabs at design time
is optional.
Edwin Harrell
causing me considerable problems.++
>>With a small value (I work with TabHeight=6), you can as near as makes no
difference.<<
Surely whether it makes a difference or not depends on the style of your
form and how precise you are about your GUI design. With some of the page
controls I am using *6* represents 10% of the visible space. I am also very
precise about my GUI design and find it a real pain having to *run* the
application to check the exact positioning every time I move a control.
>>I am bemused by your attitude - this behaviour is a very small molehill in
a very large mountain.<<
My attitude!?, I really resent that remark. Someone on the Delphi
development team made a mistake when they changed the behaviour of the
control, I repeat *they made a mistake*. They did not stop to think that
some people may use this entirely without tab's and did not keep the
behaviour consistant with other controls, namely *whole controls* ignore
visible directives at design time, *features of controls* obey them.
Rather than hold their hands up and fix it they send in their unaccountable
foot soldiers, TeamB, to tell me that I am *wrong* and that the change of
behaviour fixes a D3/D2 bug. Wayne Niddery tried to tell me that it was to
eliminate the inconsistancy in that visibility properties only work at
runtime, leaving the control visible at designtime. While this is true for
*entire* controls this is not true for *features* of a particular control.
The visible property of the buttons of a TDBNavigator works at designtime
and only displays the buttons that will be visible at runtime.
The scroll bars on a TScrollBar (VertScrollBar.Visible and
HorzScrollBar.Visible) work at designtime exactly as they do at runtime.
What makes me angry is that *it is a bug*. It fixes *no* inconsistancy at
all. What is really pissing me off is being ignored, not being valued as a
customer.
Your right Mike I am making a MOUNTAIN out of a MOLEHILL, however, I have
now been provoked. I have a customer in the USA who I am trying to persuade
to use Delphi over Visual C++ or VB, with this kind of treatment Borland
provide me with little confidence to do so.
>>FWIW, I have already submitted a suggestion to Borland that an additional
TPageControl property is added so that visual display of tabs at design time
is optional.<<
It surprises me that with all the resources available to Borland.com that
they are still absolutely appalling at the one very basic feature of
customer relations, communication.
How would I, a humble programmer, go about making such a suggestion. We
have these newsgroups to air such issues, I was not aware of another channel
(that didn't just refer you back to these newsgroups).
How would I find out the status of such a request? Has it been accepted?
Will it be implemented? How will it be implemented? When will it be
implemented?
I have the choice of posting this to one of the technical newsgroups (which
I did) and being ignored
...or...
getting into a bate with someone in the non technical newsgroup in the hope
that this issue will be noticed.
This is totally unacceptable.
I have a genuine complaint and a considerable problem in that I have
literally hundreds of TTabSheets to reengineer because of *a mistake* by
someone on the Delphi development team. How difficult can the fix be, it's
one line in the property change handler of a TTabSheet, if it was not
declared in the way it is I would fix it myself.
The bottom line is that all the excuses for this behaviour and why it is not
going to be fixed are exactly that, EXCUSES (bad, easily disproved ones at
that), Borland.com have to fix this problem to their customers satisfaction
or they will lose them (at least one anyway, namely me). Acknowledging and
accepting the problem would be a start.
John Kaster
No need to email me messages. I usually catch them here. I've mentioned the
inconsistency to the R&D team.
Mike Orriss
> My attitude!?, I really resent that remark. Someone on the Delphi
> development team made a mistake when they changed the behaviour of the
> control, I repeat *they made a mistake*.
So? Don't you ever make a mistake? The Delphi team seem to believe that the
mistake was in D3 and now corrected in D4. They should now be aware that the
change has caused problems and *possibly* something will change in D5.
> Your right Mike I am making a MOUNTAIN out of a MOLEHILL, however, I have
> now been provoked. I have a customer in the USA who I am trying to persuade
> to use Delphi over Visual C++ or VB, with this kind of treatment Borland
> provide me with little confidence to do so.
How have you been provoked? You are aware that this is a peer-to-peer
newsgroup, not an official communication avenue with borland?
> How would I, a humble programmer, go about making such a suggestion. We
> have these newsgroups to air such issues, I was not aware of another channel
> (that didn't just refer you back to these newsgroups).
Via the borland.com webpage. I am just a humble programmer like you.
> Acknowledging and accepting the problem would be a start.
Going through official channels via the webpage would seem to be a prior
requirement.
Edwin Harrell
With the greatest respect to you John, no one from Borland.com acknowledged
my posting on 13th February concerning this issue, I was simply fobbed off
by a group of TeamB er's.
Does the Delphi team acknowledge it as a *bug* (call it an inconsistency if
you like) ?
Is there likely to be a fix in the future ?
When is this fix likely to be available ?
Thank you for any help you can provide in this matter.
John Kaster
>my posting on 13th February concerning this issue, I was simply fobbed off
>by a group of TeamB er's.
No reason to kowtow to me, and I probably missed the message in the TeamB
newsgroups.
>Does the Delphi team acknowledge it as a *bug* (call it an inconsistency if
>you like) ?
Yes.
>Is there likely to be a fix in the future ?
Yes. It has been fixed.
>When is this fix likely to be available ?
That has not been scheduled, but I'll see if I can get a code workaround to
post.
Edwin Harrell
you, and you didn't appreciate the time they took to try to help you,
right?<<
No that is not true, I *did* appreciate the time they took. What annoyed me
was that from what the TeamB er's where saying they could could nothing
because Borland had not acknowledged the bug and where not prepared to
provide a solution.
"Actually, there was no official comment about the future behavior of
this feature. As Peter mentioned, many users want the feature to go
back to the way it was in D3, but for now there's no workaround. FWIW,
apparently the D3 behavior is a bug - it was supposed to work as it
does in D4."
Yorai telling me that there is *no official comment about the future
behavior of
this feature*. What does that mean? It is a bug, not a feature.
''Also, as Yorai touched on, this was apparently a bug in D3, not D4. To
explain a little more, for the tabs to dissappear at design time is
completely inconsistent with *every* other VCL control - items *always* stay
visible and enabled at design time and only obey visible and enabled
settings at runtime (at least I can't think of any other exceptions). So IOW
this was *fixed* in D4 and I wouldn't expect to see it *broken* again in any
future version. That others have also complained about this change between
D3 and D4 doesn't change this fact.''
Wayne trying to tell me that it was a *bug fix* not a *bug*. This is clearly
not the case, *whole controls* ignore visible directives at design time,
*features of controls* obey them.
The is demonstrated by TDBNavigator AND TScrollBar.
"Yes, that is something that has been changed in D4 and it has already
raised
a great many complaints. Inprise is aware of the issue and i hope they
revert to the D3 behaviour in the next Delphi version. You have to live with
it currently, there is no workaround i know of."
Peter telling me I simply have to *live with it*.
I think I was fobbed off (my personal opinion, I think I am allowed that).
It was only when some three weeks later I decided to email John Kaster (I
got told off for that too - naughty boy Edwin) that someone from Borland
finally acknowledged, accepted and is now attempting to solve my problem.
>> Surely you don't want to be offensive and make remarks that others might
"resent". I mean we are all professionals here, right?<<
Is this some kind of threat? I never meant to be offensive to anyone, if I
have offended any of the TeamB er's I apologise. I have nothing but respect
for you guys and the job you do, Nick, if I offended you with my behaviour I
apologise.
I really resent having to *throw my teddy in the corner* in order to get
noticed by Borland. This is really bad customer support and does them a
great deal of harm.
Yorai Aminov (TeamB)
<edwin....@idoink.com> wrote:
>Yorai telling me that there is *no official comment about the future
>behavior of
>this feature*. What does that mean? It is a bug, not a feature.
No, it means there was no official comment. It doesn't mean it's not a
bug. It does mean ther was no public statement whether this problem is
considered to be a bug or a feature, and this no official statement
about the future of this. Now there is.
>Wayne trying to tell me that it was a *bug fix* not a *bug*. This is clearly
>not the case, *whole controls* ignore visible directives at design time,
>*features of controls* obey them.
>The is demonstrated by TDBNavigator AND TScrollBar.
This was the information we got from borland.com at the time.
Personally, I can tell you many TeamB members have raised that issue.
This was the answer we got, and this was the answer we gave you. It
doesn't mean we like it, but we did tell you what we know.
>Peter telling me I simply have to *live with it*.
That's pragmatism. Nobody on TeamB can guarantee a bug fix. Until
borland.com releases a fix to that problem, you either have to "live
with it", or roll your own TPageControl.
---
Yorai Aminov (TeamB)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/yaminov
(TeamB cannot answer questions received via email.
To contact me for any other reason remove nospam from my address)
Edwin Harrell
about TeamB members personally, more about some of the inadequacies of the
TeamB system. On items such as this Borland staff, such as John Kaster,
should take over and deal with the complainant directly, not leave you guys
to make excuses.
I have to say that I personally would never transmit a statement I did not
agree with without a caveat stating my personal views as well.
>>Now there is<<
Yes, and look what I have had to do to get that response. It's obvious that
I have pissed off several TeamB members in the process, Mike Orris will
probably never converse with me again, I should never have been put in this
situation.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<edwin....@idoink.com> wrote:
>No that is not true, I *did* appreciate the time they took.
You have a funny way of showing that.
>What annoyed me
>was that from what the TeamB er's where saying they could could nothing
>because Borland had not acknowledged the bug and where not prepared to
>provide a solution.
>
You can't do anything about it right now.
>Yorai telling me that there is *no official comment about the future
>behavior of
>this feature*. What does that mean? It is a bug, not a feature.
>
It means that he doesn't know what they are going to do about it.
>Wayne trying to tell me that it was a *bug fix* not a *bug*. This is clearly
>not the case, *whole controls* ignore visible directives at design time,
>*features of controls* obey them.
>The is demonstrated by TDBNavigator AND TScrollBar.
>
Wayne was trying to help. Wayne has an understanding or point of view
that you don't like. Alas. The world is like that.
>Peter telling me I simply have to *live with it*.
>
Well, you do, don't you?
>I think I was fobbed off (my personal opinion, I think I am allowed that).
Sure, but I don't think you were. I think folks tried to help you
understand the situation. My conclusion is that you have no interest
in doing so. You clearly don't want to accept that it is the way it
is until it gets fixed, and that it might be a while before that
happens.
>Is this some kind of threat?
Huh?
>I never meant to be offensive to anyone, if I
>have offended any of the TeamB er's I apologise.
I accept your apology.
> I have nothing but respect
>for you guys and the job you do,
Except when you trash us in the newsgroups?
>I really resent having to *throw my teddy in the corner* in order to get
>noticed by Borland. This is really bad customer support and does them a
>great deal of harm.
Then don't do it. You are noticed, obviously. Don't bite the hand
that helps you out.
Nick Hodges
TeamB
Yorai Aminov (TeamB)
<edwin....@idoink.com> wrote:
>Thanks Yorai, I did understand this. My comments were not a reflection
>about TeamB members personally, more about some of the inadequacies of the
>TeamB system.
I see. It didn't look that way - you seemed to be angry at TeamB
members for telling you the truth, instead of assuring you the buig
would get fixed. If it was just a simple misunderstanding - so be it.
> On items such as this Borland staff, such as John Kaster,
>should take over and deal with the complainant directly, not leave you guys
>to make excuses.
These are peer support newsgroups. There was never any commitment from
borland.com (or any previous incarnations) to provide support or
information in these groups, except for the installation groups. If
you want a response from the company, you have to contact them
directly.
That said, ever since the split, borland.com employees have much
increased their participation in these groups. You see technical and
non-technical messages from people like John, Anders, Chuck J, Danny
Thorpe, Allen Bauer, Dave S and others. I see this as a great
improvement.
>Yes, and look what I have had to do to get that response. It's obvious that
>I have pissed off several TeamB members in the process, Mike Orris will
>probably never converse with me again, I should never have been put in this
>situation.
Mike is not on TeamB, and I really can't speak for other members. You
haven't pissed me off. You got the official response as soon as it was
available. In what situation do you feel you've been put? You asked a
question about a feature change in the product, got all the available
information, and when this was determined to be a bug, you got a
message saying so.
Edwin Harrell
I am sorry Nick but I don't agree with you. There is plenty I can do about
it and I have. I don't know what kind of business you are in but from where
I stand if someone produces a faulty, defective product then they fix it,
and fast.
>>It means that he doesn't know what they are going to do about it.<<
As in my reply to Yorai
"My comments were not a reflection about TeamB members personally, more
about some of the inadequacies of the TeamB system [for dealing with defects
in Borland products]. On items such as this Borland staff, such as John
Kaster, should take over and deal with the complainant directly, not leave
you guys to make excuses."
As you have quite rightly pointed out, you guys are not empowered to deal
with these senarios. If you read through my postings you will see that the
main thrust of my enquiry was *who is*.
>>Wayne was trying to help. Wayne has an understanding or point of view
that you don't like. Alas. The world is like that.<<
Again Nick, I don't agree with you (and for that matter Wayne). It is a
*bug*, it fixes no inconsistancy, in fact it creates one. This has now been
acknowledged by John Kaster, apparently the code to fix this has been
completed and he is now looking for an appropriate method to distribute the
fix. I would like to point out that after being accepted by Borland it
actually took less than 24 hours for the fix to be implemented, nothing
technically challenging obviously [ I could have fixed it in 10 minutes if
there was the ability to recompile the bpl files for the standard VCL
components, I am not saying we should be able to do this <g> ].
Wayne was telling me that it was not broken and it wouldn't be fixed.
>>Peter telling me I simply have to *live with it*....Well, you do, don't
you?<<
Obviously not.
>>Sure, but I don't think you were. I think folks tried to help you
understand the situation. My conclusion is that you have no interest in
doing so. You clearly don't want to accept that it is the way it is until
it gets fixed, and that it might be a while before that happens.<<
I worded this badly and for that I humablly apologise. I was fobbed off by
Borland, not TeamB, TeamB just delivered the message, I am guilty of
shooting the messenger.
The *situation* was totally unaccetable, it was not there to be understood,
it had to be changed.
>>Except when you trash us in the newsgroups?<<
I think you are overreacting now!
>>Then don't do it. You are noticed, obviously.<<
When the alternative is to *roll over and take it*, never! Borland are the
culprits here, they should be better listeners and comunicate more
effectively. Waynes explanation was the last word on this before I decided
to *throw my teddy* and according to him it was not a bug and would not be
fixed (contrary to what Peter Below had said).
>>Don't bite the hand that helps you out.<<
My remarks where not aimed at any one or group of individuals, they where
aimed at *the system*. I have apologised for any offense caused. Having
disagreements is fine and is normal for a healthy relationship, I don't have
to be a sycophant to appreciate the good work you guys do.
The strongest thing I have said in the many postings on this matter is that
I felt that I was *fobbed off*, that hardly constitutes *biting*, does it?
Edwin Harrell
>>I see. It didn't look that way - you seemed to be angry at TeamB members
If it was just a simple misunderstanding - so be it.
These are peer support newsgroups. There was never any commitment from
borland.com (or any previous incarnations) to provide support or information
in these groups, except for the installation groups. If you want a response
from the company, you have to contact them directly.
That said, ever since the split, borland.com employees have much increased
their participation in these groups. You see technical and non-technical
messages from people like John, Anders, Chuck J, Danny Thorpe, Allen Bauer,
Dave S and others. I see this as a great improvement.<<
I think I may have been caught in the change over of methods. I did
originally email Borland and was directed to the newsgroup to find a
solution.
Their participation is a brilliant first step, I wish them every success
with the new venture.
>>Mike is not on TeamB, and I really can't speak for other members. You
haven't pissed me off. You got the official response as soon as it was
available. In what situation do you feel you've been put? You asked a
question about a feature change in the product, got all the available
information, and when this was determined to be a bug, you got a message
saying so.<<
I had to email John Kaster personally (for which I got chastised) to get the
bug accepted, I wish I had done this in the first place. What really got me
angry was being told that the D3/D2 behaviour was a bug when I knew full
well that it was simply not the case.
Yorai Aminov (TeamB)
<edwin....@idoink.com> wrote:
>I had to email John Kaster personally (for which I got chastised) to get the
>bug accepted, I wish I had done this in the first place. What really got me
>angry was being told that the D3/D2 behaviour was a bug when I knew full
>well that it was simply not the case.
This was the "official" word - I personally heard it from members of
the Delphi R&D team. At no point did anyone give you false
information.
Edwin Harrell
I am not saying that TeamB was misleading me, what I am saying is that just
becuase it was the *official* word does not make it correct, as has now been
subsequently proved to be correct. I accept that TeamB could have done no
more, the Delphi R&D team are the ones at fault here.
This is a monster thread, he fix probably took less time than all of the
typing of these posts. I am prepared to leave this as is now and wait for
John Kaster to post the fix.
John Kaster
>should take over and deal with the complainant directly, not leave you guys
>to make excuses.
It was addressed and dealt with, in less than 8 hours. Also, it was originally
changed b/n D3 and D4 due to user complaints.
We do not and will not guarantee responses to every request that is made. We do
look at them and consider them all. Perhaps we can automate an email reply that
says "Thank you for your submission. We will review it." I doubt an
auto-generated reply makes a difference.
John Kaster
>bug accepted, I wish I had done this in the first place.
You didn't need to email me personally because I would have seen the message
here anyway. I am not our bug reporting system. If people start emailing me
bug reports with any regularity, I can GUARANTEE you I will do nothing about
them. That totally undermines our bug reporting system, and places far too much
of a burden on me. Sorry if you don't want to hear that.
Also, I cannot provide you a fix because it would require you to rebuild a
package you cannot rebuild.
John Kaster
>acknowledged by John Kaster, apparently the code to fix this has been
>completed and he is now looking for an appropriate method to distribute the
>fix.
Sorry to disappoint you, but your message and email had absolutely nothing to do
with the bug being fixed. It was already fixed when I talked to R&D about it.
Edwin Harrell
I was told that it *was not* a bug. Whats the procedure when your R&D team
don't accept it was a bug?
>>Also, I cannot provide you a fix because it would require you to rebuild a
package you cannot rebuild.<<
Can't you guys compile it and I simply replace the appropriate file in my
installation?
Edwin Harrell
to do with the bug being fixed. It was already fixed when I talked to R&D
about it.<<
So in one posting you tell me that..
"It was addressed and dealt with, in less than 8 hours."
Now you tell me that my email to you had nothing to do with the bug being
fixed.
Was the fix a response to my posting on the 13th February? Was it dealt
with within 8 hours of that posting? That original posting spanned 5 days,
as late as five days after the original posting Wayne was telling me that it
was not a bug.
How can both your statements be true, I sorry John, but something simply
does not add up.
Sometime between the 18th February and 5th March someone has changed their
mind about this *feature's* classification and fixed it.
Peter Below replied to a posting on the 2nd March and clearly did not know
about the fix (or decided not to mention it).
>>We do not and will not guarantee responses to every request that is made.
We do look at them and consider them all. Perhaps we can automate an email
reply that says "Thank you for your submission. We will review it." I
doubt an auto-generated reply makes a difference<<
You seem to be treating this like it is a request for a new *feature*, this
is simply not the case. Do Borland treat *bugs* that are causing their
customers problems in the same way as they treat requests for new features?
Its taken me three weeks to get someone (Borland or TeamB) to acknowledge
there is a problem. Apparently 8 hours to fix it (at some point during that
3 weeks). I cannot *use* the fix (Is there really no way around this *or*
are you guys just pissed at me and making me suffer). To add insult to
injury I, the customer, am also the villan!
I am speechless ....
John Kaster
>installation?
It would be great if we could do this, but I don't think you realize the amount
of time and number of people it takes to produce anything compiled we are
willing to release to the public. It has been fixed, but the fix will not be
available for a while.
John Kaster
>"It was addressed and dealt with, in less than 8 hours."
I'm talking about getting a response to you about the bug, which is still not
guaranteed.
>Was the fix a response to my posting on the 13th February?
No.
>Sometime between the 18th February and 5th March someone has changed their
>mind about this *feature's* classification and fixed it.
>Peter Below replied to a posting on the 2nd March and clearly did not know
>about the fix (or decided not to mention it).
He didn't do the fix, so there's no reason he'd konw about it.
>You seem to be treating this like it is a request for a new *feature*, this
>is simply not the case. Do Borland treat *bugs* that are causing their
>customers problems in the same way as they treat requests for new features?
Please see our posted policies on bug reports.
http://www.borland.com/devsupport/bugs/bug_reports.html
>Its taken me three weeks to get someone (Borland or TeamB) to acknowledge
>there is a problem.
I would like for our bug reporting system to be more informative and responsive.
We are working on this.
Whether or not someone who personally reports a bug is given an acknowledgement
for it has nothing to do with the bug being looked at. Bugs must be submitted
through our formal process. If the process isn't working well enough, we need
to fix it and I'd be happy to see suggestions here for how to do that. Sending
bug reports directly to me makes the process worse, not better, and also
prevents me from responding to other messages where I can provide greater
benefit.
I'm sorry the process is not to your liking. The bug has been fixed, but due to
where it exists I cannot provide you with that fix. I do not have a date for
when it will be available, either.
Yorai Aminov (TeamB)
<edwin....@idoink.com> wrote:
>I am not saying that TeamB was misleading me, what I am saying is that just
>becuase it was the *official* word does not make it correct, as has now been
>subsequently proved to be correct.
No, this is not a question of whether the statements made were
"correct". They were correct, because they provided correct
information. The behavior of TPageControl in D4 works as designed. It
is therefore not a bug - this feature is intentional. It is a problem,
since it breaks existing projects, and presents dificulties in new
projects. Personally, I agree it should be changed back. It seems now
that it would be.
Edwin Harrell
http://www.borland.com/devsupport/bugs/bug_reports.html
<<
DevSupport was the first place I looked. I received one on the standard
responses stating that it was not a bug. What was I to do?
>>I would like for our bug reporting system to be more informative and
responsive. We are working on this.<<
>>Whether or not someone who personally reports a bug is given an
acknowledgement for it has nothing to do with the bug being looked at. Bugs
must be submitted through our formal process. If the process isn't working
well enough, we need to fix it and I'd be happy to see suggestions here for
how to do that. Sending bug reports directly to me makes the process worse,
not better, and also prevents me from responding to other messages where I
can provide greater benefit.<<
You bug reports page details not *appeals* procedure. I followed the
procedure as it is laid down and was told it was not a bug. I was told by
TeamB that the D3 behaviour was the bug, how would you bug procedure have
helped me in this case?
It provides no information about bug fixes in the works and their current
status. My company has produced very large databases for clients in the UK
that deal with insurance claims, millions of them. Claimant's can get at
information regarding their claims 24 hours a day using the web. Your guys
*must* have some kind of database that has this information for bugs,
feature requests etc, why can't you provide access to this information over
the web.
The main issue here is comunication of information, if Peter Below as a
TeamB member does not know it has been fixed what hope for the rest of us.
>>I'm sorry the process is not to your liking. The bug has been fixed, but
due to where it exists I cannot provide you with that fix. I do not have a
date for when it will be available, either.<<
Borland cannot stick with this ridiculous "patch" system. You need to adopt
more of the *service pack* approach with *hot fixes* in between service
packs to deal with individual issues (Service packs contain all hot fixes
for a given period and can sense which ones have been applied when
installed).
How could this process reasonably be to anyone's liking? I don't know what
is worse, being told that it is not a bug or being told that it is, its
fixed and I cannot have it.
Are you telling me that it cannot be fixed in D4?
or
Do I have to wait for patch 4 (I know you can neither confirm or deny the
existence of a patch 4).
I believe you are the Developer Relations Manager, how can you not know the
date? It's not as if the fix is an unknown entity in terms of time and man
hours, its fixed.
If if wrote to one of my clients using your last line I would be hung, drawn
and quartered, by the client *and* my shareholders.
Lets try starting with ball park on the date, days, weeks, months, quarters,
years?
Jeff Overcash
Edwin Harrell wrote:
>
> >>That totally undermines our bug reporting system<<
>
> I was told that it *was not* a bug. Whats the procedure when your R&D team
> don't accept it was a bug?
>
Actually last August or Sept I submitted this and worded in in terms of
past functionality and it's restriction on RADness and it was determined
to be a bug and passed on to the R&D team.
Jeff Overcash
Jeff Overcash
on the R&D (it was submitted by me). This bug would, IMHO have a very
low priority since it's impact hit a small amount of developers.
Borland (any company for that matters) prioritizes their bug fixes.
Show stoppers first and then usually in order of number of users
affected + ease of work arounds. If the news groups are any
indications, very few users were complaining about it, and it did have a
usable, but not perfect, of adjusting the tab size close to nothing
(Like I said not perfect). The bug report was in the channels and
obviously from what John has stated finally came up to be addressed.
I'm not claiming that it was my report that got it fixed, only that I
know it was in the proper channels long before you sarted your crusade
one the newsgroups about it.
Jeff Overcash
Edwin Harrell wrote:
>
> >>Sorry to disappoint you, but your message and email had absolutely nothing
> to do with the bug being fixed. It was already fixed when I talked to R&D
> about it.<<
>
> So in one posting you tell me that..
>
> "It was addressed and dealt with, in less than 8 hours."
>
> Now you tell me that my email to you had nothing to do with the bug being
> fixed.
>
> Was the fix a response to my posting on the 13th February? Was it dealt
> with within 8 hours of that posting? That original posting spanned 5 days,
> as late as five days after the original posting Wayne was telling me that it
> was not a bug.
>
> How can both your statements be true, I sorry John, but something simply
> does not add up.
>
> Sometime between the 18th February and 5th March someone has changed their
> mind about this *feature's* classification and fixed it.
>
> Peter Below replied to a posting on the 2nd March and clearly did not know
> about the fix (or decided not to mention it).
>
> >>We do not and will not guarantee responses to every request that is made.
> We do look at them and consider them all. Perhaps we can automate an email
> reply that says "Thank you for your submission. We will review it." I
> doubt an auto-generated reply makes a difference<<
>
> You seem to be treating this like it is a request for a new *feature*, this
> is simply not the case. Do Borland treat *bugs* that are causing their
> customers problems in the same way as they treat requests for new features?
>
> Its taken me three weeks to get someone (Borland or TeamB) to acknowledge
> there is a problem. Apparently 8 hours to fix it (at some point during that
> 3 weeks). I cannot *use* the fix (Is there really no way around this *or*
> are you guys just pissed at me and making me suffer). To add insult to
> injury I, the customer, am also the villan!
>
> I am speechless ....
>
Edwin Harrell
They were correct, because they provided correct information. The behavior
of TPageControl in D4 works as designed. It is therefore not a bug - this
feature is intentional. It is a problem, since it breaks existing projects,
and presents dificulties in new projects. Personally, I agree it should be
changed back. It seems now that it would be.<<
I Quote from Wayne's posting ::
"this was apparently a bug in D3, not D4. To explain a little more, for the
tabs to dissappear at design time is completely inconsistent with *every*
other VCL control - items *always* stay visible and enabled at design time
and only obey visible and enabled settings at runtime (at least I can't
think of any other exceptions). So IOW this was *fixed* in D4 and I wouldn't
expect to see it *broken* again in any future version. That others have also
complained about this change between D3 and D4 doesn't change this fact."
I accept that someone delibertely changed the behaviour, however, that does
not excude from it being classified as a bug. Intentional changes *can*
and *do* end up being classified as bugs, I have done it myself. An attempt
is made to justify this change by claiming that ::
"*every* other VCL control - items *always* stay visible and enabled at
design time"
This is not true, *whole controls* ignore visible directives at design
time, *features of controls* {TTabSheet.TabVisible is a property of a
feature} obey them.
I will give you three examples, if you can find me three that work the other
way (i.e. in line with what Wayne has argued) I will act like the gentleman
I am and conceed I am wrong.
TMenuItem
Visible *and* Enabled properties work at design time
TDBNavigator
The visibility of the buttons works at design time.
TScrollBox
HorzScrollBar.Visible and VertScrollBar.Visible both work at design time
I have gone through all the standard controls one by one and cannot find one
that exhibits the same behaviour as TTabSheet.TabVisible.
>>It is a problem, since it breaks existing projects, and presents
dificulties in new projects<<
We are playing with words here, I accept that the fact that it was
delbrately changed and the fact that this was the official statement for
Borland means that noone mislead me and that all statements where made in
good faith in an attempt to help me.
However, the statement is *fundamentally* incorrect. It was (is) a bug,
this has been accepted and according to John Kaster has been fixed. The
*offical* statement (again according to John Kaster) is that it is a bug,
the previous *offical* statement that it was not was obviously wrong, both
cannot be correct.
Yorai you have gone beyond the call of duty on this one, if you ever come to
London beers are on me, I need a new keyboard and fingers <g>.
Edwin Harrell
>>Actually last August or Sept I submitted this and worded in in terms of
past functionality and it's restriction on RADness and it was determined to
be a bug and passed on to the R&D team.<<
We have now had three patches in which it was not fixed. Does this make it
better or worse? (I am beyond redemption on this one <g>)
If this is the case why was I being told in February that it was not a bug ?
(if you don't believe me go look at the posting [13th February - Delphi 4
TTabSheet.TabVisible Property- Borlan.public.delphi.vcl.components.using])
John, is it that it cannot be fixed by patch? Is it a *must* wait for D5? (I
think you know my next question <g>).
Edwin Harrell
>>I know that last fall it was submitted and accepted as a bug and passed on
the R&D (it was submitted by me). This bug would, IMHO have a very low
priority since it's impact hit a small amount of developers. Borland (any
company for that matters) prioritizes their bug fixes.
Show stoppers first and then usually in order of number of users affected +
ease of work arounds. If the news groups are any indications, very few
users were complaining about it, and it did have a usable, but not perfect,
of adjusting the tab size close to nothing (Like I said not perfect). The
bug report was in the channels and obviously from what John has stated
finally came up to be addressed. I'm not claiming that it was my report that
got it fixed, only that I know it was in the proper channels long before you
sarted your crusade one the newsgroups about it.<<
I know its a lot to ask but you really should read the whole thread (its a
bit long <g>).
Your statements contradict Yorai Aminor (TeamB) and Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
who both state that the *official* postion on or around the 13th February
was that the feature was a fix for D3 behaviour and was *not* a bug. Yorai
got this direct from the Delphi R&D team.
Someone somewhere has a very disorganised database of bugs, fixes and
feature requests.
It is fixed, I don't know who's posting it was that did it, but according to
John its done. It obviously was not fixed prior to patch 3 or I would
imagine it would have been included.
Most of *my crusade* has been to find out what you already know, are you
critising me for this?
I have looked through the newsgroups, its not an avalance of complaints
about it but is a steady stream. (put it this way I have seen more mentions
about this than some of the bugs that have been fixed).
Yorai Aminov (TeamB)
<edwin....@idoink.com> wrote:
>I accept that someone delibertely changed the behaviour, however, that does
>not excude from it being classified as a bug. Intentional changes *can*
>and *do* end up being classified as bugs, I have done it myself. An attempt
>is made to justify this change by claiming that ::
We'd have to disagree on that one. If the documentation did not match
the IDE's behavior, for example, I'd classify this as a bug. I still
see this as a bad design choice.
>"*every* other VCL control - items *always* stay visible and enabled at
>design time"
I never said that. Just to add to your list - TBitBtn also obeys
Enabled=False at design time. (TButton doesn't - that's because it
would require actually disabling the control, which the IDE can't
afford to do).
>I have gone through all the standard controls one by one and cannot find one
>that exhibits the same behaviour as TTabSheet.TabVisible.
It might be possible to make a case for TToolButton.Visible, since
TToolButton objects only exist as children of a TToolbar.
>We are playing with words here
That was my point.
>Yorai you have gone beyond the call of duty on this one, if you ever come to
>London beers are on me, I need a new keyboard and fingers <g>.
Deal.
John Kaster
>think you know my next question <g>).
Do you want to push out the release of Delphi 5 and C++ Builder 5 by at least
three weeks? This is the least that producing another patch will cost us. I
don't think this problem rates that level of effort, do you?
John Kaster
>TeamB member does not know it has been fixed what hope for the rest of us.
That's because the fix has not appeared in any release.
>Are you telling me that it cannot be fixed in D4?
It *can* be. We currently have no plan to. I have responded about the impact
of a patch. We certainly do not consider this one change to be worth the cost
of a patch.
>I believe you are the Developer Relations Manager, how can you not know the
>date?
I didn't say I didn't know the date. I don't have a date to tell you.
>Lets try starting with ball park on the date, days, weeks, months, quarters,
>years?
It will be before Jan 1, 2000.
Edwin Harrell
least three weeks? This is the least that producing another patch will cost
us. I don't think this problem rates that level of effort, do you?<<
a/ You *have* to go the *hot fix* route. Not being able to quickly deal
with these problems is a major handicap.
b/ If D5 is going to be the same quality as D4 then delay it by 3 weeks
(bearing in mind that we will have to wait 3 patches and 8 months before it
works properly it won't make any difference).
c/ I brought D4 Client/Server. I cannot effectively use it until this
problem is fixed. If I agree and wait for D5 I will have burned over
£1,000. I have never used it for development, it has sat on my machine
hogging disk space. It was not stable enough to use until patch 2,
TClientDataSet was still not 100% and then I found this problem. I will
also have to pay the inflated release prices for D5 to get the fix quickly.
d/ Agreeing to this will mean that D4 will *never* be fixed!
Three weeks delay for a one line bug, you cannot be serious. Your going
around the houses John but what you are effectively saying to me is *get
lost*. I hope you guys are aware just how much damage you have done with D4
If it is really a three week job and D5 is that imminent then I accept I am
blown. You have avoided my question in the last posting but we need to talk
ball park times before I will back away from this.
Edwin Harrell
After John Kaster's latest posting I am finished with this thread. Borland
lost one *friend* today.
Just to make sure there is no bad blood between me and you I just want to
clear up one last thing.
>>>"*every* other VCL control - items *always* stay visible and enabled at
design time"<<<
>>I never said that<<
I know you didn't, it was a quote from something Wayne said.
>>Deal.<<
Keep my email address, I'm serious.
John Kaster
>lost one *friend* today.
Sorry to see you go. You obviously care about the product.
I'm also sorry you find disagreement about priorities unnacceptable. Please
accept my apology if my straight-forward responses to your posts offended you.
Ingvar Nilsen
> Three weeks delay for a one line bug, you cannot be serious.
I appreciate that Borland doesn't release an avalanche of bug fixes.
They have an enormous responsibility. Maybe their bug fix policy can be
improved, maybe it can be more effective.
There sure are some bugs not fixed in the #3 patch, who definitely would
have had no influence on other things (the BeginDrag bug for example).
But all in all, better with a bug we know, than a fix that has not been
thoroughly tested.
What can be improved, is the information to us developers about known
bugs. This is bCom's challenge, not patches at an increased rate.
> I hope you guys are aware just how much damage you
> have done with D4.
Borland is facing the same problems that the rest of this industry is.
The complexity of today's software make the possible combinations of
internal routines grow exponentially. Which again makes the need for
testing grow at the same rate.
We face this all of us, the problems with the overwhelming complexity.
At the same time the customers (in this case you and me) demand
upgrades, improvements, more features.
BTW, D4 didn't do any harm to me, it made me an even greater Delphi fan
:)
Ingvar Nilsen
Danny Thorpe
TeamB exists to help customers understand and use Borland products.
Evaluating and reporting bug status is not their responsibility, but when
folks have an issue that may be a bug, TeamB will do everything they can to
help the customer evaluate whether the issue really is a bug, and how to
work around it.
Clearly, the history of this TabVisible issue has been one of judgement
calls. What is the "correct" behavior for TabVisible at design time, and
who has ultimate authority on this decision? We debated this TabVisible
issue within R&D for days. There are vocal advocates for and against the
TabVisible design-time behavior in the newsgroups, in TeamB, and in R&D.
The more people you ask, the more opinions (and different answers) you're
going to get.
TeamB, the newsgroup participants, Borland customers, and the Delphi
development team are a community of individuals and opinions - not a
collective-thinking Borg. We can't all give the same answer at the same
time, especially on items that require a subjective judgement call.
-Danny Thorpe
Senior Engineer, Delphi R&D
Inprise Corporation
Edwin Harrell <edwin....@idoink.com> wrote in article
<7bs0ta$a8...@forums.borland.com>...
John Kaster
>with these problems is a major handicap.
Some things can be hot fixed. Some cannot. This cannot.
>b/ If D5 is going to be the same quality as D4 then delay it by 3 weeks
We disagree on the severity of this problem. I don't think you will find one
other person in this newsgroup who will agree with you that we should delay
Delphi 5 to change this implementation.
>c/ I brought D4 Client/Server. I cannot effectively use it until this
>problem is fixed.
If this is really the case, stop using it and go back to D3 until D5 ships, or
don't use D5 at all. It's your money. You choose how to spend it.
>Three weeks delay for a one line bug, you cannot be serious. Your going
>around the houses John but what you are effectively saying to me is *get
>lost*. I hope you guys are aware just how much damage you have done with D4
You simply do not understand the patch process we have here. If you choose not
to believe me and think this is something we are doing specifically to spite
you, anything I say to the contrary is pointless. Most people here were not
happy with the quality of D4 and we are addressing it in D5. Providing a patch
for this one problem would kill much time that could otherwise be devoted to bug
fixing.
>blown. You have avoided my question in the last posting but we need to talk
>ball park times before I will back away from this.
I didn't avoid your question. I told you I wouldn't give you a date. You can
keep asking, and I'll keep telling you that.
When we have a firm release date, we will announce it. Until then, we will not.
I'm sorry you don't like this policy, but that's the way it is.
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
>
>Rather than hold their hands up and fix it they send in their unaccountable
>foot soldiers, TeamB, to tell me that I am *wrong* and that the change of
>behaviour fixes a D3/D2 bug. Wayne Niddery tried to tell me that it was to
>eliminate the inconsistancy in that visibility properties only work at
>runtime, leaving the control visible at designtime. While this is true for
>*entire* controls this is not true for *features* of a particular control.
>
>The visible property of the buttons of a TDBNavigator works at designtime
>and only displays the buttons that will be visible at runtime.
>
>The scroll bars on a TScrollBar (VertScrollBar.Visible and
>HorzScrollBar.Visible) work at designtime exactly as they do at runtime.
For the record, in my last post to you awhile back, I think I indicated
agreement with Mike that it would be a good thing to make this setting
optional in future because of the fact that some people *had* become
dependent on it, regardless of its inconsistency.
As for the inconsistency, there is still a difference between a tabsheet and
a navigator or scrollbar: a tabsheet is a *container* component - it can
contain other controls and, by making it invisible, you also make the
contained controls invisible. That's the way I still see it, however that
doesn't mean I think you are wrong for asking to have this feature back - if
I gave you that impression then I apologize. I explained it as *I* see it,
it wasn't an official Borland position (please be clear about our status as
TeamB members - we are not official spokesmen for Borland).
I see that John Kaster has replied to you that this *has* been accepted as
an item to be changed, and will be made available as soon as it can. I hope
this can be done soon enough to solve your problem satisfactorily.
I also hope, despite this particular issue, that you are noticing the recent
changes Borland has been bringing about. They are working very hard to
improve *everything* and are already meeting with success. I am confident
you *will* notice if you haven't already!
--
Wayne Niddery - WinWright Consulting
Delphi, C++Builder, JBuilder, InterDev --
http://home.ican.net/~wniddery/RADBooks.html
...remove chaff when replying...
"You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi"
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
>
>Your statements contradict Yorai Aminor (TeamB) and Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
>who both state that the *official* postion on or around the 13th February
>was that the feature was a fix for D3 behaviour and was *not* a bug. Yorai
>got this direct from the Delphi R&D team.
Excuse me Edwin but this is not right. I *never* stated my position as an
"official* one and never said it wouldn't be fixed, I only said I wouldn't
*expect* it to be changed again - I think such wording pretty clearly
indicates it to be an *opinion*. TeamB very clearly *cannot* make any
official statements on behalf of Borland, we can only tell you what we know
and/or think.
TeamB is also not privy to Borland's *internal* data - we are not employees
of Borland. I for one did not know it had been submitted and already
accepted for change by R&D. Please see the following link on the official
status of TeamB members: http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/teamb/index.html
I really hoped this issue would be resolved to your satisfaction (i.e. soon
enough) but it appears that may not be the case and I'm sorry to hear that.
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
It appears I again (or still, not sure which) misunderstood the issue. For
some reason I was thinking about the entire tab page disappearing rather
than *just* the tab itself (even though this obviously doesn't happen). Now
that I finally have it straight I can say that I *agree* with you that there
is nothing inconsistent about the tab disappearing at design-time. Sorry for
arguing against it. (And I thank Jeff Overcash for pointing out my
misunderstanding to me).
Wayne Niddery (TeamB) wrote in message <7bscfg$a6...@forums.borland.com>...
>As for the inconsistency, there is still a difference between a tabsheet
and
>a navigator or scrollbar: a tabsheet is a *container* component - it can
>contain other controls and, by making it invisible, you also make the
>contained controls invisible. That's the way I still see it, however that
>doesn't mean I think you are wrong for asking to have this feature back -
if
>I gave you that impression then I apologize. I explained it as *I* see it,
>it wasn't an official Borland position (please be clear about our status as
>TeamB members - we are not official spokesmen for Borland).
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
My only point is this -- you have been given more attention from
borland.com that any other user on this forum concerning a minor,
non-showstopper, workaroundable bug. You have been shown every which
way from Tuesday that your complaints have been heard and acted upon.
Yet you still want to complain. Apparently the only thing that would
placate you is for the entire R&D team to stop what they are doing for
the rest of us and provide a patch to you for a problem that only you
seem to care about.
Nick Hodges
TeamB
Mike Orriss
> There are vocal advocates for and against the
> TabVisible design-time behavior in the newsgroups, in TeamB, and in R&D.
> The more people you ask, the more opinions (and different answers) you're
> going to get.
>
Did anybody consider adding a property to PageControl making this behaviour
optional, thus satisfying both camps? It seems to me that the longer the
argument lasts, the better the case.
Mike Orriss (m...@3kcc.co.uk)
http://www.3kcc.co.uk/notetree.htm
Bob Arnson
news:VA.00000886.038de402@mikedesk...
> Did anybody consider adding a property to PageControl making this
behaviour
> optional, thus satisfying both camps? It seems to me that the longer the
> argument lasts, the better the case.
that? I'm coming up empty in a purely off-the-top-of-my-head mental
search...
--
sig://boB/TeamB
Luk Vermeulen
>the rest of us and provide a patch to you for a problem that only you
>seem to care about.
Edwin is not the only person who cares. Some of us took the more careful
approach and didn't upgrade production source code to D4. New projects -
fine, since you know what you're dealing with.
-Luk-
Roger Arnesen
John Kaster wrote in message <7bsaq8$a7...@forums.borland.com>...
>>c/ I brought D4 Client/Server. I cannot effectively use it until this
>>problem is fixed.
>
>If this is really the case, stop using it and go back to D3 until D5 ships,
or
>don't use D5 at all. It's your money. You choose how to spend it.
Bad reply, John.
This guy just spend a load of cash on a product from you he finds unusable,
and all you can say is "ignore the purchase, use the old stuff" or "pay the
same amount of money again, and it will be fixed"?
Unacceptable.
Roger
>you, anything I say to the contrary is pointless. Most people here were
not
>happy with the quality of D4 and we are addressing it in D5. Providing a
patch
>for this one problem would kill much time that could otherwise be devoted
to bug
>fixing.
You can not possibly be serious? You are doing D5 as a patch for D4?????
What about the money I spent on D4 then? Just wasted then, is it? I should
buy again from blind faith?
No, really, you *do* need to address D4 issues. I do not care if D5 is
delayed. Because you are sending a
*very* bad message with this kind of reasoning. When you tell the general
public that D4 is discontinued less than two years after release, and you
have to upgrade at full price to D5 to get the bugs fixed, you loose all
credibility with regards to your intentions of fulfilling your D5
obligations.
Remeber, you are not talking $99 software here, where you can get away with
"buy the next release". This is serious cash for a large percentage of your
user base.
Roger
John Kaster
>or
>>don't use D5 at all. It's your money. You choose how to spend it.
>Bad reply, John.
I disagree. He votes with his money and his feedback. I told him that we will
be unable to change it any time soon. It's preventing him getting work done.
He can go back to D3 if this is blocking him from the work he needs to do. If
other features of D5 are not compelling enough for him to upgrade, he can
continue with D3. We disagree about the severity of this implementation. If it
prevents him from doing what he needs to do, he should stick with D3.
>This guy just spend a load of cash on a product from you he finds unusable,
>and all you can say is "ignore the purchase, use the old stuff" or "pay the
>same amount of money again, and it will be fixed"?
I encourage him to return it if it is within the return period. If it's not,
then obviously this problem didn't prevent him from working with Delphi 4 long
enough for the money-back guarantee period to expire.
>You can not possibly be serious? You are doing D5 as a patch for D4?????
I am very serious about the focus on quality for Delphi 5. There are many new
features, and it is not a D4 patch.
>No, really, you *do* need to address D4 issues.
We have. We have produced 3 patches to date. At this time, we have no plans
for a fourth patch. Certainly not for this implementation change.
> I do not care if D5 is delayed. Because you are sending a
>*very* bad message with this kind of reasoning.
Thanks for your feedback.
Ingvar Nilsen
> We have. We have produced 3 patches to date.
> At this time, we have no plans for a fourth
> patch. Certainly not for this implementation
> change.
Please excuse me, haven't had any time myself to investigate, but since
this control is a Windows control, not a native Delphi one, isn't it
possible to design a component you can drop on the form at designtime, a
component that sends a certain message to the Pagecontrol, which in turn
makes the tabs disappear?
Ingvar Nilsen
Mike Orriss
> How many components have properties that modify design-time behavior like
> that?
>
Not a lot <g>
John Kaster
implementation of that control, and won't be manifested in the object inspector.
It's a solution. He could also create his own descendant of the Pagecontrol.
Colin Wilson
> the new D4 behaviour where the
> tabs are *always* visible at design time is causing he considerable
> problems.
>
One solution is to design a separate (borderless) form for each page,
then when you want to select the next page, destroy the previous one,
and create the new one on the fly and make it the child of a TPanel.
That has a couple of advantages..
1. The source code for each page is maintained in a separate unit, so
it's not so unweildy, and is probably more logical.
2. The control's on each page don't all exist - only the ones for the
current page, so you don't run into resource problems on W95 & W98, and
slow loading problems on all platforms.
3. Code in thngs like 'FormCreate', 'UpdateActions', etc. doesn't get
so tangled.
4. With form inheritance you can base all the pages on the same
underlying form layout, which is often what you want.
5. You avoid the problem of tabs being visible at design time, so what
you see is exactly what you get.
Colin
e-mail :co...@wilsonc.demon.co.uk
web: http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/delphi.htm
Joe C. Hecht
1) Why is this thead crossposted???
2) Why are the people responsible for telling
us not to crosspost, crossposting themselves????
3) Why are the people responsible for telling
us not to crosspost, not telling us to obey
the rules and not to crosspost???
4) Why should we pay any attention to the
rules if the people who enforce the rules
dont play by the rules themselves???
Finally, to John Kaster of Borland, I'm not unfairly singling
you out in my reply. I see that just today, Nick Hodges and
Wayne Niddery of TeamB are also not following though with
the program either.
Joe
--
Joe C. Hecht
http://home1.gte.net/joehecht/index.htm
Bob Arnson
> Not a lot <g>
Precisely.<g>
--
sig://boB/TeamB
Roger Arnesen
John Kaster wrote in message <7buhqt$bu...@forums.borland.com>...
>Thanks for your feedback.
OK, John, nitpicking here, but in my ears (ok, eyes then) this comes across
as ironic when you refute all my statements. I may be the only one who
feels this, but just thought I'd let you know.
Regards,
Roger
oz
You are way, way, out of line here. Just because a particular
-customer- (note emphasis on -customer-....we're not Borland's
friends or lovers until we start getting free copies of product
like you do) carries the torch on behalf of others that are
also suffering does -not- mean that others aren't suffering.
I find your remarks callous and, frankly incredible.
Borland would do well to remove you as a TeamB member.
The signal to noise ration is just too low.
Oz
nickh...@yahoo.com (Nick Hodges (TeamB)) wrote:
>Edwin --
>My only point is this -- you have been given more attention from
>borland.com that any other user on this forum concerning a minor,
>non-showstopper, workaroundable bug. You have been shown every which
>way from Tuesday that your complaints have been heard and acted upon.
>Yet you still want to complain. Apparently the only thing that would
>placate you is for the entire R&D team to stop what they are doing for
>the rest of us and provide a patch to you for a problem that only you
>seem to care about.
>Nick Hodges
>TeamB
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
I don't normally reply to anonymous posters, but here goes....
I only got into this thread because Mr. Harrell chose to insult TeamB
for trying to help him out.
Mr. Harrell has gotten about as much Customer Service here as anyone
possibly can. Somehow that wasn't enough.
Sorry if you think that my response was out of line. I just made a
rather straighforward comment to him about the situation. I didn't
insult him at all. Straight talk is often confused with a pejorative
tone, and I forget that sometimes.
If you think I ought to be kicked off TeamB for being straightforward
when insulted, you can e-mail Lorie Hull at
Nick Hodges
TeamB
Edwin Harrell
reporting of this continue.
>>I only got into this thread because Mr. Harrell chose to insult TeamB for
trying to help him out. <<
I *never* insulted you. I claimed I had been *fobbed off* by a group of
TeamB er's. You were not one of them! How did I insult you? As I expalined
to Yorai what I should have said is that I felt that I had been *fobbed off*
by Borland, TeamB were simply the messengers.
*fobbed off*, I am sorry but is this some kind of heinous insult where you
come from? Have I inadvertently called your mother something not very nice.
I tried to address this possibility by apologising for *any* offence I
caused (to Wayne and Yorai). I think that your *straighforward* comments are
far more insulting than my description of being *foobed off*, at best they
probably belong in the same category.
I have made my peace with Wayne and Yorai, Wayne has even had the courage to
apologise for arguing against me, he now accepts that I was in fact correct
(thank you Wayne that meant more to me that any other posting in my support
on this issue).
>>Mr. Harrell has gotten about as much Customer Service here as anyone
possibly can. Somehow that wasn't enough. <<
How's that then Nick. I found a bug in D4, in the first instance nobody to
whom I talked to, either *official* fully paid up Borland employees or TeamB
members, would acknowledge that it was a bug. In fact I was told that it was
*not* a bug and would probably not *ever* be fixed.
After 3 weeks of polite perseverance, under pretty extreme provocation from
the likes of you and others, Danny Thorpe finally come forward and told the
truth. Yes it was a bug, yes it has been fixed, however, I cannot have the
fix unless I *wait* (I am OK with this as long as I can plan) and *pay* for
D5.
He also states that for D4 "There is no field-installable workaround or fix
for this TabVisible
problem". Contrary to your assertion in a previous posting, there is no
*workaround*.
[John Kaster]>>If it prevents him from doing what he needs to do, he should
stick with D3.<<
[John Kaster]>>I encourage him to return it if it is within the return
period. If it's not, then obviously this problem didn't prevent him from
working with Delphi 4 long enough for the money-back guarantee period to
expire<<
This is the final word from Borland. Is this what you are referring to as
"as much Customer service here as anyone possibly can [get]"
I purchased Delphi4 in September 1998 and have never used it for an
application. I was not until Patch2 that I could get it to run reliably
enough to even attempt to use it. I finally had some time to *upgrade* my
current applications from D3 to D4, then I found the TabSheet problem.
According to John Kaster I am a mug for holding onto it and waiting for the
patch, I should have returned it. Where would Borland be if all developers
returned their copies pending a patch? Bankrupt, that’s where!
I have been *helped* to understand that there is no fix and that I cannot be
*helped*. Borland have *chosen* not to help me, albeit for good reason from
their perspective they have still *chosen* not to provide me with any help.
I tend to think that customer service is more result driven, the amount of
words that are expended in the pursuit of it are pretty irrelevant. The
result is that I am considerably more enlightened (in many ways) but no
further forward with my initial problem. I think most *fair* people would
see why I think this.
Delphi 4 is a product, it is defective in that there are areas which do not
operate correctly. Like *all* manufacturers Borland have a responsibility to
fix it.
{I would also like to add at this point that there is *another* bug in
TTabSheet. If you set TabSheet1.TabVisible to false at runtime, the whole
TabSheet
vanishes, how inconsistant is that?}
[John Kaster] >>Most people here were not happy with the quality of D4 and
we are addressing it in D5<<
Knowing how *open* Borland are with their customers there are probably a
whole heap of bugs that will be *fixed* in D5 that Borland classify as *non
critical.
Every bug is a show stopper for someone. Borland have a serious issue
whereby they classify a bug as unimportant and try to assert their
classification onto a person for whom the bug has an entirely different
level of importance.
Perhaps I don't want to buy D5. Perhaps the new features in it are not
compelling enough to warrant the $1500+ for the Client/Server version.
Whatever the argument I should not be forced to buy D5 because I need a D4
bug fixed. You don't have this problem because you get your copy FOC (how
TeamB er's can possibly know how this feels is beyond me)
The *fact* is that John Kaster and his management team do not want to let
the next release of D5 slip for revenue reasons. Suffice it to say, I don’t
think it has much to do with satisfying customers or producing a better
product but more to do with upgrade revenues generated from the existing
customer base, it is nothing to do with my problem being small or large.
What they don't seem to take on board is that this kind of arrogant
combative approach will mean that the pond from which they derive this
income will become smaller and smaller.
>>Sorry if you think that my response was out of line. I just made a rather
|straightforward| comment to him about the situation. I didn't insult him at
all.<<
You insulted nothing but my intelligence, I am big enough and ugly enough to
put you right on that though <g>
>>Straight talk is often confused with a pejorative tone, and I forget that
sometimes.<<
Perhaps you should try to show others the consideration you seek. I don't
know what kind of upbringing you had but I was always taught that
"An unintentional insult apologised for is forgotten"
>>If you think I ought to be kicked off TeamB for being straightforward when
insulted, you can e-mail Lorie Hull at lh...@inprise.com<<
I offer you a quote from an email I sent to John Kaster
"You can protest as much as you want that TeamB are an *unofficial* body and
do not work for Borland. Until you guys sort out your communication with
your customers they *are* the only channel, that makes them defacto
*official*. You appoint them, you sack them, they do what they do a your
behest, you pay them, albeit the currency is free product."
You guys are as close as it gets without actually going on the payroll!
I don't want to get into a fight with you over this, you cannot possible
know how much of an inconvenience this bug is for me. You belittle it
because it is not a problem for you. The fact that D4 will *never* be fixed
is appalling, inexcusable. This a point of principle, not some petty little
fracas that you can dismiss (you get your product for nothing, I pay $1500
for mine I am entitled to service, remember that).
EDWIN HARRELL
Systems Architect
iDOiNK Systems
edwin....@idoink.com
P.S. Oz has an email address
ozb...@bigpond.com
He is rather less anonymous than some on the newsgroups
Mark Richter
>
> > Did anybody consider adding a property to PageControl making this
> behaviour
> > optional, thus satisfying both camps? It seems to me that the longer the
> > argument lasts, the better the case.
> search...
Could this be the time to consider adding such options?
Might this be one of those things that makes the development environment
better - easier to use?
Don't know, just thought I'd toss out the comment as "food for
thought"...
--
Mark Richter
eMCee Software
"Only those who risk going too far
can possibly found out how far one can go"
T.S. Eliot
Mark Richter
Thanks for the tip. Sounds like an answer to a problem I've had for
some time... Overloading the form file with all the event code, et. al.
Your approach sounds much more rational than the one I had chosen.
Philippe Ranger
I don't want to get into a fight with you over this, you cannot possible
know how much of an inconvenience this bug is for me. You belittle it
because it is not a problem for you. The fact that D4 will *never* be fixed
is appalling, inexcusable. This a point of principle, not some petty little
fracas that you can dismiss (you get your product for nothing, I pay $1500
for mine I am entitled to service, remember that).
<<
I'm not TeamB, I'm not in the remotest way speaking for Borland.com. Edwin,
I haven't seen the whole dossier on this, starting on another forum. But
I've found your posts inflammatory ("throwing your teddy-bear in the corner"
repeatedly rates getting locked in your room). From what I've seen, I could
have signed Nick's two posts word-for-word. I wouldn't, because my style is
different and I haven't followed the whole thing, but I don't see what's to
question in Nick's trying to promote a sense of balance against your, well,
voluntary tantrums.
Despite Oz, I don't think Nick is out of line, I think you are. After all
this, after Danny's answers, the above paragraph is ridiculous. Bugs or bad
design choices, NO piece of software is going to be fixed continuously, and
this particular design choice (which has its supporters) is certainly not a
project stopper!
You're using both Borland.com and TeamB as scratching posts. I'd bet you'll
get a private rebate on D5. Commercially, it may or may not be good policy.
Humanly, it's more than you seem to deserve.
PhR
Edwin Harrell
Which posts?, you have lost me here. I was forthright and stuck to my guns,
inflammatory, I think not.
>>"throwing your teddy-bear in the corner"<<
Please don't quote me out of context
"I really resent having to *throw my teddy in the corner* in order to get
noticed by Borland. This is really bad customer support and does them a
great deal of harm."
I refers to the *act* of sending an email to John Kaster, he did not object,
I don't see why you should.
>>voluntary tantrums<<
Hmm, are you trying to *spin* me? If you read the thread I think you will
find that, yes, I stated my opinions strongly, threw "voluntary tantrums", I
think that is a little strong.
>>Despite Oz, I don't think Nick is out of line, I think you are. After all
this, after Danny's answers, the above paragraph is ridiculous. Bugs or bad
design choices, NO piece of software is going to be fixed continuously, and
this particular design choice (which has its supporters) is certainly not a
project stopper!<<
I agree with you "NO piece of software is going to be fixed continuously",
however, Delphi 4 has only been around for 9 months or so, it is a product
in it's own right.
It was John Kaster who stated that...
"Most people here [Borland] were not happy with the quality of D4 and we are
addressing it in D5."
It was Roger Arnesen that stated...
"You can not possibly be serious? You are doing D5 as a patch for D4?????
What about the money I spent on D4 then? Just wasted then, is it? I should
buy again from blind faith?"
I only got back into this when Nick insisted on publically rubbishing me and
my opinion *again*. I thought you of all people would respect someone,s
opinion.
Surely bug's and bad design choices highlighted and accepted 9 months later
warrant a fix. The product is still on sale today, are Borland going to
withdraw it pending the release of D5, I think not.
I'm sorry but we will have to agree to disagree on this. I cannot think of
another product, costing as much as Delphi 4 Client/Server, that a software
vendor refused to fix after only 9 months after its release.
Suffice it to say, I don’t think it has much to do with satisfying customers
or producing a better
product but more to do with upgrade revenues generated from the existing
customer base, it is nothing to do with my problem being small or large.
>>certainly not a project stopper<<
n o t f o r y o u !
>>You're using both Borland.com and TeamB as scratching posts. I'd bet
you'll get a private rebate on D5. Commercially, it may or may not be good
policy. Humanly, it's more than you seem to deserve.<<
Judge Jury and Executioner
I am not so exhaulted, I am simply a customer who purchased a product which
the supplier refused to fix without demanding that I *pay again*.
You are doing exactly what others have tried to do in this thread. You have
criticised me for being "inflammatory", when it is simply not the case. Your
insistence on *spinning* me with accusations of bad behaviour, rather than
dealing with the issues, is why I have replied. As is the case with Nick's
previous posting.
Jan Kerkhof
>I'm not TeamB, I'm not in the remotest way speaking for Borland.com. Edwin,
You did not follow the whole thread, so what gives you the right to judge.
Come back when you have done so.
>I've found your posts inflammatory ("throwing your teddy-bear in the
corner"
>repeatedly rates getting locked in your room). From what I've seen, I could
>have signed Nick's two posts word-for-word. I wouldn't, because my style is
>different and
>>>> I haven't followed the whole thing, but I don't see what's to
Again, come back when you have done so.
You don't seem to have a problem to judge somebody without knowing
all the facts.
You just pick the parts that you don't like and think that it is your duty
to backup Borland with your 2 cents.
>Despite Oz, I don't think Nick is out of line, I think you are. After all
>this, after Danny's answers, the above paragraph is ridiculous. Bugs or bad
>design choices, NO piece of software is going to be fixed continuously,
and....
Again, judgement on incomplete facts.
If somebody is out of line, I think it is you.
>Humanly, it's more than you seem to deserve.
Who the **** do you think you are.
The man had a problem with a feature change from D3 to D4 and as a customer
he has the right to ask for a solution to this problem.
If he gets contradictory answers from different people, be it from TeamB or
Borland, he has all the right in the world to ask for clarification.
If the answers he gets, from the people he asks, are of no help,
what is he to do.
Just because he protested he does not deserve help anymore?
Again, who are you to give that judgement.
He is not alone in his complaint. I agree with what he argues.
Does this mean that I also don't deserve help anymore.
Jan Kerkhof (JKS)
Joe C. Hecht
> If you think I ought to be kicked off TeamB for being straightforward
> when insulted, you can e-mail Lorie Hull at
> lh...@inprise.com
My only problem is that you *continue* breaking the posting rules
by crossposting this stupid thread.
And Finally:
> I don't normally reply to anonymous posters, but here goes....
It should make no difference what the "name" of the poster is
but rather the ideas that were represtened by that person.
I find it sad that some of the folks here would be quite
happy reponding to "someone" who made up a ficticious name,
but will ignore someone who obviously posts under an anonymous
"handle". I can understand the TeamB mentality, but even the
some of the Borlanders have done this as well. One of these days,
one of you will confuse the two (ficticious names, anonymous handles,
and someones real name), and end up insulting a customer (without
intending to). True strory: I recall a Professor Phuck... Would you
reply to his post?
Bob Arnson
news:36E3F193...@emceesoftware.com...
> Might this be one of those things that makes the development environment
> better - easier to use?
unacceptable to a number of folks.
--
sig://boB
http://bobs.org
oz
There is nothing anonymous about my posting.
My Email address is ozb...@bigpond.com which is just
as useful as yours. I can read your responses
here, and I can receive and respond to Email at that
address, Please don't try to sidestep.
Oz
nickh...@yahoo.com (Nick Hodges (TeamB)) wrote:
>oz --
>I don't normally reply to anonymous posters, but here goes....
>I only got into this thread because Mr. Harrell chose to insult TeamB
>for trying to help him out.
>Mr. Harrell has gotten about as much Customer Service here as anyone
>possibly can. Somehow that wasn't enough.
>Sorry if you think that my response was out of line. I just made a
>rather straighforward comment to him about the situation. I didn't
>insult him at all. Straight talk is often confused with a pejorative
>tone, and I forget that sometimes.
>If you think I ought to be kicked off TeamB for being straightforward
>when insulted, you can e-mail Lorie Hull at
>Nick Hodges
>TeamB
oz
What you say is quite true...unless someone in this forum has
a photostat of my birth certiciate/deed pool/stat dec of a name
change, there is no reason to assume I don't sign my cheques
(including the ones to Borland) as "ozbear".
I'd start posting under the name of "Marion Morrison" but then
we already know that "John Wayne" is really dead, don't we?
Oz
"Joe C. Hecht" <joeh...@gte.net> wrote:
>Nick Hodges (TeamB) wrote:
>> If you think I ought to be kicked off TeamB for being straightforward
>> when insulted, you can e-mail Lorie Hull at
>> lh...@inprise.com
>My only problem is that you *continue* breaking the posting rules
>by crossposting this stupid thread.
>And Finally:
>> I don't normally reply to anonymous posters, but here goes....
>It should make no difference what the "name" of the poster is
oz
I initially found Ed's posts over-the-top. However, I only responded
when Nick decided to enter the fray. After much considered, patient,
explaining by both Yorai and Wayne, and after it looked like some
closure was being attained, Nick decided to throw some gasoline
into the embers.
Very unprofessional behaviour. Bad psychology too.
But I guess some people just can't resist.
Oz
"Philippe Ranger" <.> wrote:
>Edwin: >>
>I don't want to get into a fight with you over this, you cannot possible
>know how much of an inconvenience this bug is for me. You belittle it
>because it is not a problem for you. The fact that D4 will *never* be fixed
>is appalling, inexcusable. This a point of principle, not some petty little
>fracas that you can dismiss (you get your product for nothing, I pay $1500
>for mine I am entitled to service, remember that).
><<
>I'm not TeamB, I'm not in the remotest way speaking for Borland.com. Edwin,
>I haven't seen the whole dossier on this, starting on another forum. But
>I've found your posts inflammatory ("throwing your teddy-bear in the corner"
>repeatedly rates getting locked in your room). From what I've seen, I could
>have signed Nick's two posts word-for-word. I wouldn't, because my style is
>different and I haven't followed the whole thing, but I don't see what's to
>question in Nick's trying to promote a sense of balance against your, well,
>voluntary tantrums.
>Despite Oz, I don't think Nick is out of line, I think you are. After all
>this, after Danny's answers, the above paragraph is ridiculous. Bugs or bad
>design choices, NO piece of software is going to be fixed continuously, and
>this particular design choice (which has its supporters) is certainly not a
>project stopper!
>You're using both Borland.com and TeamB as scratching posts. I'd bet you'll
>get a private rebate on D5. Commercially, it may or may not be good policy.
>Humanly, it's more than you seem to deserve.
> PhR
Donald Wallace Rouse II
that is executed at runtime sprinkled throughout the VCL.
(What's really needed is a "component editor"
(that can edit entire components, rather than just properties).
The editor could override things like tab height at design time,
and developers could override the editor to change things
more to their liking.
The info could be stored in Delphi form design (.dfd?) files,
which are not included in the app executable.)
David Farrell-Garcia
david
Edwin Harrell wrote in message <7bmv95$58...@forums.borland.com>...
>TPageControl with TTabSheets, not TNotebook.