On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:36 PM Kirk Brooks via 4D_Tech < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > Personally I have a lot of concepts about how to do code operation in 4D > that are strongly rooted in what it was possible to do in 4D. ORDA > frequently goes in a different direction and the optimal ORDA solutions > look much different than I'm accustomed to. Usually cleaner, tighter and > less code. Not always, but usually. > > Kirk, I think you misunderstood what is in my opinion very good discussion. The question was not how to refactor some 4D code to ORDA, rather how to solve some problems (that can be solved with interprocess named selection and sets) in ORDA. The discussion split to several venues - would it be wise to implement, can it be circumvented by redesigning the problem and if not, how to implement it? While discussion si (I hope) not finished, it seems to me that currently ORDA does not offer efficient solution - although the situation can change in the future - and it is wise to try to avoid sharing selections by using another new feature, support for several active windows within one process. Such solution may have its own problems, though. -- Peter Bozek ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
