Przemek is out of xharbour developer Not a god news. Can i request collaboration between two project?
Anybody share this idea please post his note Here my vision of fact: Przemek is technical Guru, is genius that allow choice of High reliability in harbour Xharbour in past not remember copyright code copied from xharbour Harbour have more activity that xharbour.org Harbour and Xharbour must join effort to be more competitive Wich solution you see for cooperation? > There's nothing good reading this kind of emails, you just waste our time. > don't you know our interest is limited to xharbour development only? we > don't care about personal issues. > > Ron, you are the only offensive person here, treating Przemek as liar, > ungrateful, exagerated person, stupid, evil, etc. > > Przemek, you are wasting your time... remember this 3000 years old saying: > (Proverbs 23:9) "Into the ears of a stupid one do not speak, for he will > despise your discreet words." > > Please, I want to be removed from xHarbour-Developer List!! Done. 2009/7/23 Przemyslaw Czerpak <dru...@acn.waw.pl> > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Ron Pinkas wrote: > > Hi, > > >> I do not want to discard your work but such modifications as in > >> xHarbour are technical nonsense. > >> You copy code of existing DBF* RDDs and then you change their names > >> adding 'RE' prefix and replace hb_file*() calls with hb_fileNet*(). > >> ... > > As I already indicated, I also think that some other mechanism should be > > used, instead of verbatim copy. Yet, calling this work a "technical > > nonsense" is offensive and wrong. You talk about "replace hb_file*() calls > > with hb_fileNet*()" as if it's some trivial child play, but you must know > > that the ***idea*** is BRILLIANT. > > No Ron. It isn't. It's not real NETRDD. It inherits all overhead > caused by index file processing on client side. It only replace > transport layer so instead of OS file server local one is used > but nothing more is changed. Maybe it's faster in some networks > due to reduced some static costs but for me it's really technical > nonsense as part of RDD modifications not worth to invest time and > I'm not alone in such opinion though as yet another virtual file > type which does not force any core code modifications it can be > added just like accessing files by FTP:, HTTP: or any other custom > protocol. I'm sorry but there is nothing in above modification what > can be even called innovative idea. I added request for virtual > handles to Harbour TODO list for few years ago. > > > For the Nth time, please try to be more civil and constructive, when > > criticizing the work of others who volunteer their time and creativity to > > this free project. They do not deserve to be ridiculed by you or anyone > > else. > > I am constructive. I presented how it can be implemented without > touching core code even as 3-rd party extension and I show what > is broken in current implementation which is fatal and I should > ignore it but I was afraid that someone may want to port this > modifications to Harbour. Fortunately also other Harbour developers > checked the details of these modifications and I do not have to > longer worry about it. > And to calrify I perfectly well know what I'm talking about but > I have serious doubts if you know what is real remote RDD if you > called such technical nonsense as "brilliant idea". > > best regards, > Przemek > _______________________________________________ > Harbour mailing list > Harbour@harbour-project.org > http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour -- Massimo Belgrano _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
