[DUG] Delphi XE (2011)

[Cameron Hart]

Jeremy,  are you aware that even when you purchase the source code version of ReportBuilder they do not provide the source code to their "RAP" engine.  Therefore you need to upgrade for any breaking releases of Delphi.  This is simply another element that needs to be considered when deciding whether or not to use XE.

I agree with you that anyone using third party components without having the source is taking a huge risk.  Unfortunately it just isn't possible to get source code in all instances.  This problem existed with Delphi itself until recently in terms of anyone using the dbexpress library could not access the source code of midas.dll.

Regards,
Cameron

-----Original Message-----
From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jeremy North
Sent: Friday, 20 August 2010 10:31 a.m.
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: Re: [DUG] Delphi XE (2011)

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Jolyon Smith <jsmith at deltics.co.nz> wrote:
> Breaking releases suck because it means you have to purchase and 
> incorporate upgrades for all your 3rd party components if they include non-source units.
> ReportBuilder, for example.

Not many charge for new product releases but why not. You get charged to buy the new major version. Third parties have to test and make changes for the newer versions. Generally newer releases that support the new major version also comes with enhancements.

Don't be a tight a$$ and buy the source code version of ReportBuilder.
If your company is depending on third party components, not having the source code is a massive risk. They (3rd parties) won't always be able to fix bugs immediately.

> Non-breaking releases suck if they don't include major changes, but 
> you don't have to break the DCU format in order to introduce major changes.

No, not at all. The DCU format breaks as soon as you make a change to an existing source file above the Implementation section. So any changes in the interface section of a unit breaks the DCU format.

Delphi 2007 introduced a new published property without breaking the DCU format because it used a bunch a hacks and tricks to get around this. Something the developer that did it doesn't want to have to ever do again for a VCL enhancement. Check out the implementation of the GlassFrame property (in D2007) for those interested.

> Including AQ Time, FinalBuilder, CodeSite and introducing new 
> widgetyflips in the IDE... none of these things necessitate a change 
> in the DCU format as far as I can see.

No they won't.

> Making a release a breaking release for the sake of it being a 
> breaking release does not automagically mean that the release is a 
> massively fixed and enhanced release.  It just means it's a breaking release.

They don't make releases breaking for the sake of them. They make them for the sake of whinging customers that don't understand any better and want everything to be easy and straight forward.

>
> iirc D2007 was considered a major improvement over D2006 yet managed 
> to be a non-breaking release.

Considered <> Was

The major "improvements" in Delphi 2007 over Delphi 2006 was the IDE was actually made 100% more usable with added stability and speed.
There was Vista support but do you wonder why all of the Vista stuff was in NEW units and not existing ones where it should have been? Due to it being a non-breaking release.

Non breaking releases are bad news for everyone because you can't modify an existing units interface section. Not every class has a seldom used property to apply pointer tricks to and be used for another property as well.

There were many bugs that should have been fixed in that release that were not due to it being non-breaking.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz 
> [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jeremy North
> Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2010 17:28
> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
> Subject: Re: [DUG] Delphi XE (2011)
>
> It is a breaking release.
>
> Non-breaking releases suck. It means they can't fix and enhance as 
> many things as should be done between major product releases.
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Jolyon Smith <jsmith at deltics.co.nz> wrote:
>>> To be honest, this release has a D6 -> D7 or BDS 2006 -> D2007 
>>> (where there were no interface breaking changes) feel to it.
>>
>> Interesting observation.  At least with D2007 they didn't change the 
>> DCU format so it was literally a non-breaking release, and iirc made 
>> changes
> to
>> specifically allow for this sort of major-but-interim non-breaking
> release.
>> Did they do the same thing this time I wonder?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
>> Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
>> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
>> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject:
> unsubscribe
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
> Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject:
> unsubscribe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
> Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with 
> Subject: unsubscribe
>

_______________________________________________
NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject: unsubscribe