Re: Why must have two version of PB in future?
Mark Maslow
news:4c3a795f@forums-1-dub...
> Ahh .. OK - so if Steve Balmer does a poor job - than PB 12.Net just
> follows? Why couldn't PB 12.net make it work on all controls - that is add
> value where MS failed - that is what IT developers would pay for in PB!
>
Do you want to pass in some initial data? The ObjectDataProvider class
provides just such functionality:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.data.objectdataprovider.aspx
There are also regular properties, and things called "Markup Extensions"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms747254.aspx
You say "MS failed", but I'm not at all clear on just what you think they
failed at. What's missing?
Bruce Armstrong
constrictors, .net classes do. Microsoft implemented the same
"lop-sided and inconsistent" approach.
"Chris Pollach" <cpol...@travel-net.com> wrote:
> So if .NET controls do support this - why did Sybase bother to allow
> this on UO's? It just makes the implementation lob-sided and
> inconsistent. They should have either a) left UO's alone and just left
> us a consistent way of initializing all controls or b) added PB
> support to implement this constantly on all objects.
>
> Now we have a mishmash solution which will lead to more confusion for
> the maintenance programmers to figure out the initialization approach
> for object A vs B.
>
>
>
> "Bruce Armstrong" <NOCANSPAM_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:vqfi369kkofonmq7u...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Controls? I don't know that .Net visual controls have parameterized
>> constructors.
>>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.button.button.aspx
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that XAML controls don't either.
>>
>> You're thinking in PB terms. In .Net terms controls don't contain
>> code. Why would they need parameterized constructors?
>>
>> On 10 Jul 2010 17:58:20 -0700, "Chris Pollach"
>> <cpol...@travel-net.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The is another good point ... parameterized constructors were only
> > > >>partially
>>> implemented on a few objects. Just like PowerTip text on DW's ...
> > > what >>about
>>> all the controls? Sybase needs to cross the T's and dot the I's,
> > > otherwise
>>> it looks like all they care about is doing a half-ass job - not a
> > > good
>>> impression IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bruce Armstrong" <NOCANSPAM_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > message
>>> news:cs3h369gm02i74207...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> C# has some of those features (parameterized constructors). But
> > > > you
>>>> don't code in C# in PB.Net, you code in PowerScript. A number of
>>>> significant languages feature enhancements listed were added to
>>>> PowerScript as a result of user requests and to make it more
> > > > compliant
>>>> with the CLR (parameterized constructors, interfaces, etc).
>>>>
>>>> No, it's not sly to credit the IDE enhancements. The repeated
>>>> requests by customers to support state-of-the-art IDE capabilities
> > > > was
>>>> one of the factors driving the decision to host PB in either
> > > > Eclipse
>>>> or Visual Studio. Read some of the comments made by a number of
> > > > the
>>>> Sybase folks with regard to that in this thread and others. They
>>>> could have continued their .Net efforts in the original IDE, but it
>>>> would have been difficult to provide the IDE features people were
>>>> looking for without a substantial rewrite. Moving PB.Net into
> > > > Visual
>>>> Studio provided the features that people were asking for, and let
>>>> Microsoft do most of the work to implement it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm all with moving on to talk about futures. But as long as Chris
>>>> continues to make outlandish statements like "none of the 526
> > > > active
>>>> enhancements logged against PB were included in 12", I'll be
> > > > compelled
>>>> to address them.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, in an upcoming editorial in PBDJ I make my arguments for
> > > > where
>>>> we should be going, particularly focused on delivering Silverlight
>>>> and/or HTML5 capability ASAP. I'll post a link to it as soon as
> > > > it's
>>>> online.
>>>>
>>>> On 10 Jul 2010 01:17:46 -0700, "Brett Weaver"
>>>> <brettnspampleaseatweaversoftdotcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>> I really respect and appreciate the contribution that you have
> > > > > made to >>>>the
>>>>> PB developer community for more than a decade.
>>>>> I'm sure C# has all of the features you list, and by default, so
> > > > > does
>>>>> PB.Net. because it uses visual studio. To purport that they were
> > > > > >>>>included
>>>>> after due care and consideration of requested enhancements is a
> > > > > little
>>>>> sly,
>>>>> don't you think? Or have I got it wrong and there is a serious
> > > > > list of >>>>PB
>>>>> only enhanced capabilities included as tools in the VS
> > > > > environment?
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case the majority of PB developers have no access to them
> > > > > because
>>>>> they maintain PB code bases.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does this mean? Well, Wallies like me who were assuring our
> > > > > clients
>>>>> that, based on what we were hearing, PB was meeting the market and
>>>>> providing
>>>>> a real step forward in PB12 are embarrassed. Probably our own
> > > > > fault I
>>>>> agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have said, time to stop the sniping and move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce Armstrong" <NOCANSPAM_br...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > > message
>>>>> news:vp1g365ihka55btd2...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you referring to 12 Classic? Because a number of the
> > > > > > enhancements
>>>>>> you are referring to were included in 12.Net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2916 Should have some autoresize capability within PowerBuilder
>>>>>> 3173 Allow IDE plug-ins to allow 3rd parties to provide features
> > > > > > to
>>>>>> enhance development process
>>>>>> 3074 Collapsing IF.. END IF, FOR .. NEXT, etc
>>>>>> 3002 Next Generation WIndows UI Enhancements
>>>>>> 3224 Right click to jump to painters
>>>>>> 3081 Collapse code in editor
>>>>>> 3165 Provide code jump/link
>>>>>> 3226 Powerbuilder Script Editor
>>>>>> 3240 Go to Definition
>>>>>> 2647 Better search capability
>>>>>> 2656 search and replace
>>>>>> 2583 feature rich Script editor or able to plugin any other
> > > > > > feature
>>>>>> rich script editor like UltraEdit.
>>>>>> 3317 Global String Replace
>>>>>> 2640 Add Interface objects to PowerBuilder 9.
>>>>>> 3151 Powerscript Enhancements (most but not all of them)
>>>>>> 2752 Add return type information to AutoComplete.
>>>>>> 2577 Microsoft like IntelliSense
>>>>>> 3296 xaml datawindow
>>>>>> 2677 Extra generators for PB
>>>>>> 3084 Hide full PBL path in painter window title
>>>>>> 3164 Allow code change in the debugger (it allows this, but you
>>>>>> have to save the modified object with a different name)
>>>>>> 2491 From debugger, jump to script editor
>>>>>> 2602 Support MDI tabs.
>>>>>> 2567 Allow Version Control of Supporting Files
>>>>>> 3160 Allow copy/paste of individual lines from output pane in IDE
>>>>>> 2761 Todo List for Powerbuilder should be dockable and hide
> > > > > > capable
>>>>>> in the development environment
>>>>>> 2674 Add arguments for constuctors
>>>>>> 2673 parameters to constructors
>>>>>> 2608 Auto Hide - System Tree, Output and Clip window similiar to
>>>>>> Windows TaskBar AutoHide property
>>>>>> 2718 Provide 'auto-hide' capability for the panes in the PB IDE.
>>>>>> 3225 Integrate Powerbuilder as add-on to Visual Studio
>>>>>> 2676 Allox the definition of supplemental constructors with
>>>>>> arguments
>>>>>> 3203 add the possibility to set func,event documentation
> > > > > > directrly
>>>>>> from the IDE
>>>>>> 3262 Make any tabpage of the ide dockable as a dedicated view
>>>>>> 3045 Ability to save source code without pass compile
>>>>>> 2741 To specify the .*sr* files different than the PBL files for
>>>>>> source control.
>>>>>> 3143 Creation of new library should be allowed under a selected
>>>>>> target in the system tree
>>>>>> 3144 Create a new Library creation dialog
>>>>>> 3357 Add support for Subversion (added as a result of the support
>>>>>> for plug-ins, including VSTortoise)
>>>>>> 2565 Get Rid of The PBL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also looks like the enhancement database is a bit out of date.
> > > > > > A
>>>>>> number of the "under consideration" status items were included in
>>>>>> earlier releases of PB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that being said, my concern with the ISUG enhancement list is
> > > > > > that
>>>>>> it's a fairly small sampling of PowerBuilder users. The Webforms
>>>>>> support for Firefox enhancment request, the second highest
> > > > > > scoring
>>>>>> enhancment request in the system of PowerBuilder, ony has 36
> > > > > > total
>>>>>> votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, the Novalys annual survey has thousands of
>>>>>> respondants (or at least they did in 2004, the last time I can
> > > > > > find
>>>>>> they reported the number of respondants). In the 2009 survey,
> > > > > > 24% of
>>>>>> the respondants indicated they were interested in using PB to
> > > > > > generate
>>>>>> .Net applications now, and another 35% said they would be
> > > > > > interested
>>>>>> in doing it in the future. When asked what enhacements they
> > > > > > wanted
>>>>>> most 50% indicated better web services support (delivered through
> > > > > > WCF
>>>>>> in PB 12.Net) and 49% indicated integration with .Net (once again
>>>>>> delivered in PB 12.Net).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 Jul 2010 21:01:18 -0700, "Chris Pollach"
>>>>>> <cpol...@travel-net.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well I can tell you that none of my OSUG PB members ever
> > > > > > > mentioned
>>>>>>> Sybase asking them about PB 12 feature direction. Looking from
> > > > > > > the >>>>>>ISUG
>>>>>>> perspective, none of the 526 active enhancements logged against
> > > > > > > PB >>>>>>were
>>>>>>> included in 12. I have never seen anyone in the NG's saying they
> > > > > > > were
>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>> about PB 12. So, to me - I would be most interested to hear from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>actual
>>>>>>> PB
>>>>>>> developers that were consulted. However, my bet is that other
> > > > > > > than
>>>>>>> TeamSybase - the contact was very limited.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Paul Horan[Sybase]" <phoran_remove@remove_sybase.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > >>>>>>message
>>>>>>> news:4c371aa9$1@forums-1-dub...
>>>>>>>> The implication is that we don't? Or just that we didn't ask
> > > > > > > > you
>>>>>>>> personally...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Paul Horan[Sybase]
>>>>>>>> http://paulhoran.ulitzer.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Chris Pollach> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4c362715.168...@sybase.com...
>>>>>>>>> Hi Terry;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, like taxes - you know you are going to get s****d at
>>>>>>>>> some point. Its just how bad and when. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, you can soften the blow of deprcating a feature
>>>>>>>>> if you provide a ton of new features - or at least distract
>>>>>>>>> the developer with lots of shiny "bling". :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the end though, I still think that Sybase needs to
>>>>>>>>> solicit actual PB developer feedback before they embark on a
>>>>>>>>> release and its feature changes must be well known. That way
>>>>>>>>> the PB community can verify whether a certain direction,
>>>>>>>>> deprecation or lack of a feature (because Sybase thought
>>>>>>>>> something else was more important) is really what is needed
>>>>>>>>> to sell IT management on springing for the next release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe I am just too logical and used to the old software
>>>>>>>>> vendor ways. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards ... Chris
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You get burned by a 3rd party control vendor or you get
>>>>>>>>>> burned by Sybase dropping support for a feature. The end
>>>>>>>>>> result is the same: you are burnt toast. So your
>>>>>>>>>> argument for not wanting to use a 3rd party control
>>>>>>>>>> because that's so dangerous is simply invalid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Terry Dykstra (TeamSybase)
>>>>>>>>>> http://powerbuilder.codeXchange.sybase.com/
>>>>>>>>>> http://casexpress.sybase.com
>>>>>>>>>> product enhancement requests:
>>>>>>>>>> http://my.isug.com/cgi-bin/1/c/submit_enhancement
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <Chris Pollach> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4c35ebe0.74f...@sybase.com... Hi Jason;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WOW .. no OLE or PL experience in all those years - my
>>>>>>>>>>> you lead a sheltered PB life! I have implemented so many
>>>>>>>>>>> PL and OLE applciations I have lost count. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if you want to just follow the MS way of life
>>>>>>>>>>> then 3rd party controls are a necessity. IMHO they
>>>>>>>>>>> should only be used as a last resort and the DEV tool
>>>>>>>>>>> should provide a comprehensive suite (WinDEV does for
>>>>>>>>>>> example). Take a look at VB though and over the years
>>>>>>>>>>> how many developers got burned as control vendors
>>>>>>>>>>> evaporated or MS technology changed and the control
>>>>>>>>>>> vendor could not keep up. That caused excrutiating pain
>>>>>>>>>>> for many VB developers. Personally, as a PB developer I
>>>>>>>>>>> want to be insulated from those type of things and why I
>>>>>>>>>>> would buy PB over VS. Otherwise, we might as well all
>>>>>>>>>>> just switch over to VS (ooops - did I say that - <my
>>>>>>>>>>> ). >
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards ... Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1: Sybase has already said that Pipelines are in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> works. I know people use them. FWIW, I never have...
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's 13 years of experience talking, too. OLE? I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> never used that, either. What's MS forecast on OLE?
>>>>>>>>>> MDI? >> As stated, MS took this out and the rest of the
>>>>>>>>>> industry >> has found better ways. Performance? Yes. I'll
>>>>>>>>>> give you >> the performance point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2: http://www.componentone.com/SuperProducts/StudioWPF/
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.devcomponents.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.telerik.com/products/wpf.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.infragistics.com/dotnet/netadvantage/wpf.aspx#Overview
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many, MANY people say that one indicator of a product's
>>>>>>>>>>>> viability is the presence of a 3rd-party market. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> should WANT PB to expand its 3rd-party market and you
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be EXCITED that PB can now tap in to the WPF
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd-party market.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And having the bells and whistles straight out of the
>>>>>>>>>> box? >> If ANY product did that (including VS and WinDev)
>>>>>>>>>> , the >> businesses above wouldn't be in business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2010 8:39 PM, Chris Pollach wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Evan;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> S1: WPF makes it much easier to provide such
>>>>>>>>>> innovative >> > interfaces A1: I was only parroting what I
>>>>>>>>>> was told by >> > Sybase. So far the WPF limitations,
>>>>>>>>>> performance, lack of >> > classic features like PipeLines,
>>>>>>>>>> OLE, MDI, Profiler, etc >> > make PB 12.net interesting to
>>>>>>>>>> look at but, I personally >> > would not even attempt a
>>>>>>>>>> production application with it >> at this point-in-time. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> S2: 3rd party controls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A2: S****w 3rd party controls <bg>! I have burned so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> many times by these I have lost count. That is why I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have used CVUO and DW's to emulate allot of GUI
>>>>>>>>>> interest >> > since PB 4. Surprisingly, the PB 4 PB
>>>>>>>>>> objects I built >> then still work in PB 12 Classic (and
>>>>>>>>>> somewhat WPF). >> > Frankly, if I am paying good $$$ for
>>>>>>>>>> an enterprise >> > development system I expect all the
>>>>>>>>>> "Bling" out of the >> box and have the vendor committed to
>>>>>>>>>> supporting it. > >> > S3: I can tell you that isn't going
>>>>>>>>>> to happen >> > A3: TTFN PB - hello new RAD IDE (sad but
>>>>>>>>>> true, as now >> > dictated by many IT managers).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> S4: still have the rest of your list to tackle ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A4: Will that be ready to test by Monday? :-))))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards ... Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>>> President: OSUG / STD Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blog: http://chrispollach.pbdjmagazine.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SourceForge:
>>>>>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/stdfndclass >> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Evan [Sybase]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4c34ab42$1@forums-1-dub... >> Chris, most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> items on your list are easier for us to get to in >>
>>>>>>>>>> the >> new IDE and by leveraging the .NET platform - both
>>>>>>>>>> at >> design-time >> and runtime.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen you mention (1) before... WPF makes it
>>>>>>>>>> much >> easier to >> provide such innovative interfaces so
>>>>>>>>>> I'm >> surprised at your comments >> in other threads
>>>>>>>>>> saying you >> (or other organizations) see no need to >>
>>>>>>>>>> move to WPF. >> >> There are already many 3rd party
>>>>>>>>>> controls that provide >> what you're >> asking for...
>>>>>>>>>> perhaps what you are really >> saying is you want all
>>>>>>>>>> these >> things built-in (ie, >> free)? >> If so, I can
>>>>>>>>>> tell you that isn't going to >> happen. Maybe there will
>>>>>>>>>> be >> some additional controls >> here and there, but we
>>>>>>>>>> still have the rest of >> your list >> to tackle ;-) >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Chris Pollach> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:4c349dd3.404...@sybase.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Reed;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for the insider views!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW: Whatever Sybase decides, it needs to be able
>>>>>>>>>> to >> >>> empower PB developers to address the major
>>>>>>>>>> negatives >> that >>> end users criticize PB applications
>>>>>>>>>> for: >> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Why can't PB applications look more like
>>>>>>>>>> MS-Office? >> >>> => I would challenge Sybase here to also
>>>>>>>>>> go beyond >> that >>> and strive for innovative interfaces
>>>>>>>>>> - for >> example: >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/beta/features/#feature-firefox-bottom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Developers need to be able to have more control
>>>>>>>>>> over >> menu >>> options (like SLE and DDLB's on the menu
>>>>>>>>>> bar, >> control over >>> applications IDE by user
>>>>>>>>>> preferences >> (skins), carousel; >>> split bar; pane; etc
>>>>>>>>>> built-in >> controls, etc). >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) PB applications need to be FULLY web enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is to say, they need to be able to run
>>>>>>>>>> using >> >>> CLF/508 standards in current browsers like FF
>>>>>>>>>> , Chrome, >> >>> Opera, Safari, and IE (at a minimum).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Web services need to be improved to handle newer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards like WSE 3.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Bult-in integration with popular software like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SharePoint, SalesForce, SAP, etc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Support for latest MS-O/S releases and features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Integrated Testing Tool
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7) Integrated SCM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8) WM7, Android and iPhone support (for PK)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW ... as a PB developer I personally do not care
>>>>>>>>>> if >> the >>> NET vs the Classic IDE empowers me to
>>>>>>>>>> deliver >> these things >>> to the business user. What I
>>>>>>>>>> need to >> reply on is that Sybase >>> can deliver these
>>>>>>>>>> types of >> things (which I call the Critical >>> Success
>>>>>>>>>> Fators) that >> developers and business users need >>>
>>>>>>>>>> today [actually >> yesterday]. Sybase also needs to
>>>>>>>>>> provide a >>> SOLID >> migration path for the current
>>>>>>>>>> mission critical Win32 >>> >> applications. So if PB.NET
>>>>>>>>>> is the future then it needs to >> >>> support Win32
>>>>>>>>>> targets before IT would even consider >> moving >>> into
>>>>>>>>>> that environment (IMHO). >> >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards ... Chris
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** OPINION ONLY ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY MANNER ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** Background Only ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First - yes - PB.NET is a "disruptive change"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We acknowledge that...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we had many discussions when we started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down that path for PB.NET.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, like everything in life, we needed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> balance >>>> the cost/benefit of the path to reach our
>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate goal. >>>> The goals for PowerBuilder include
>>>>>>>>>>>> (unordered list): >>>> - "native" integration with .NET
>>>>>>>>>>>> framework. >>>> So your NVO's and eventually Visual
>>>>>>>>>> UO's >> can be >>>> used by ANY .NET language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - conversely, using ANY .net class or control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ultimately the web based solution - from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning we viewed WPF as a stepping stone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the path to Silverlight (even when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silverlight had a different name).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All this for both the DW and regular Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - improvements to all the layout painters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - improvements to all the script painters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To accomplish this we had three basic choices:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) continue to add to the almost 20 year old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PowerBuilder IDE framework
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) base a new IDE on Eclipse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> c) Partner with Microsoft and base a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new IDE on Visual Studio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Needless to say, many people wanted to continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding features to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing PB "classic" IDE framework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the small group of us in Concord figured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was futile so we broke off and chose between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eclipse and VisualStudio (now offering the SDK).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Remember the PB IDE internals are almost 20 years
>>>>>>>>>>>> old. >>>> Ever work on a 20 year old application that
>>>>>>>>>> has >> lived >>>> through a dozen MAJOR releases - OY).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Between Eclipse and VS - not an easy choice -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have experience with Eclipse internals and
>>>>>>>>>> having >> >>>> all the sources does come in handy...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, based on the .NET/WPF/Silverlight
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements, >>>> we figured that using VisualStudio
>>>>>>>>>> as a >> starting point was >>>> more in-tune with what YOU
>>>>>>>>>> (the >> customer) would need. >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The result gives you (the customer) a choice
>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on >>>> your requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) PB-Classic to stay in the Win32 world a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer. >>>> Not forgotten and still being enhanced.
>>>>>>>>>> But >> the >>>> Concord IDE folks are not focusing on it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) PB.NET for apps with eye-candy (not filling but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sugary goodness), with juicy layout and script
>>>>>>>>>>>> painter >>>> enhancements, simpler SCC, add-ins, and a
>>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>> chance of using .NET controls and classes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyways....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The IDE team attacked the desires and requirements
>>>>>>>>>>>> above. >>>> We could either take an extra 10 years and
>>>>>>>>>>>> wedge it into >>>> the "well-aged" classic IDE, or be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit more timely >>>> and INCREMENTALLY back-fill while
>>>>>>>>>>>> still >>>> providing new capabilities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH (maybe just a little),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reed Shilts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concord, Mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Standard-Disclaimers-Apply/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** OPINION ONLY ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY MANNER ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jul 2010 21:42:54 -0700, Harimada wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please tell me why in the future PB still have
>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic >>>> and >NET version. For me, I a bit confused
>>>>>>>>>>>> with which >>>> version >should must i choose. Why does
>>>>>>>>>>>> not Sybase produce >>>> only one >PB version that could
>>>>>>>>>>>> offer everything in >>>> development. >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One other thing after PB classic application
>>>>>>>>>>>> migrated to >>>> >PB.NET, there is no other way to
>>>>>>>>>> 'turn >> back' to classic >>>> >application.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please Advise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harimada Sabalkunan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My Web 2.0 Stuff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blog: http://brucearmstrong.sys-con.com/
>>>>>> Facebook:
> > > > > > http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Armstrong/1600223798
>>>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bruceaarmstrong
>>>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/bruce_armstrong
>>>>>> Ning: http://powerbuilder.ning.com/profile/BruceArmstrong
>>>>>> Xing: http://www.xing.com/profile/Bruce_Armstrong
>>>>>> YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/brucearmstrong
>>>>>> Fotki: http://public.fotki.com/brucearmstrong/
>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> My Web 2.0 Stuff
>>>>
>>>> Blog: http://brucearmstrong.sys-con.com/
>>>> Facebook:
> > > > http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Armstrong/1600223798
>>>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bruceaarmstrong
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/bruce_armstrong
>>>> Ning: http://powerbuilder.ning.com/profile/BruceArmstrong
>>>> Xing: http://www.xing.com/profile/Bruce_Armstrong
>>>> YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/brucearmstrong
>>>> Fotki: http://public.fotki.com/brucearmstrong/
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> My Web 2.0 Stuff
>>
>> Blog: http://brucearmstrong.sys-con.com/
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-Armstrong/1600223798
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bruceaarmstrong
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/bruce_armstrong
>> Ning: http://powerbuilder.ning.com/profile/BruceArmstrong
>> Xing: http://www.xing.com/profile/Bruce_Armstrong
>> YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/brucearmstrong
>> Fotki: http://public.fotki.com/brucearmstrong/
chrispollach
I was suggesting that PB should allow us to overload the
Constructor Event for all objects - not just CVUO/NVNO's.
<maybe it is technically not possible>
Regards ... Chris