> Christian Ulrich schreef: > > Can somebody please tell me whats wron with this patch ? > > Did you really expect an answer within 20 hours?
no but Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho has askd if this is ok as i implemented at 12. November 2006 on 3:16 GMT+1 nobody has answered so i expect that the implementation this way is ok (other patches are applied within 4 hours and matthias, you and Marc have answered more than one time in this time so i expect that everyone has read the mail and agree. then i implement this and ... > Can somebody please tell me, what is wrong with the note 9741 on bug > http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=2066 . I waiting now for > more than 4 days for feedback from the reporter. iam sorry i dont get mails fr4om mantis on such issues at examples notes on my bugs and so on. can i switch this on somewhere ? i have answered please mark it as fixed and i close it. > I found a little time to look at this patch. > > First: > I doubt the general usefulness of having the applicationtype as member > of TApplicationProperties. TApplicationProperties are part of a from, > which is created at its earliest *after* the call to > Application.Initialize. So generally the ApplicationType isn't changed > until known after the call to TWidgetSet.Create *and* > TWidgetSet.AppInit. This limits its usefulness. why does this limit its usefullness ? when we set it in the projectoptions, its also set only on appstart. > I think it would be better to set the ApplicationType in the Project > Options as part of the Application Settings groupbox. The IDE would > add/edit/remove the > Application.ApplicationType := atDesktop; > line just before Application.Initialize in the .lpr file. yes, maybe what schould i do ? schould i remove it from TApplicationProperties ? > Secondly the patch contains several fixes at once. It is better to > create separate patch files for it. >>Can you implement this? It would be nice to have all modifications >>related to this on a single patch. i only act like felipe has sayed. > > Or apply it !? > > I cannot do it, I don't apply LCL and wince patches without consent of > other lazarus developers, unless the patch is trivial and undisputed. for shure, and i will in the future only send patches when i real need the contents. its simply to problematic to ask 5 developers to get an patch applied. when i post it here nobody answer so the only way seems to be to write 5 mails to the core developers ? PLEASE can somebody say what i have to do to get this fix into lazarus i will cut the patch into one general lcl part and one wince part. and will remove the change of tapplicationproperties. is this then ok ? Christian > > > > Christian > > > > Christian Ulrich schrieb: > >>> On 11/12/06, Christian Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> And also in TApplicationproperties so it can be set in an visual way > >>>> ... > >>>> > >>> Can you implement this? It would be nice to have all modifications > >>> related to this on a single patch. > >>> > >>> If no one objects I will suppose TApplicationproperties is a > >>> acceptable way. Just make sure you can set this both visually and by > >>> code. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Here it is, TApplication and TApplicationProperties have an > >> ApplicationType > >> property > >> and the wince apps close correctly and looks like they schould on pdas > >> and > >> smartphones ;) > >> > >> Hope this will be applied ... > >> > >> Christian > >> > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > "unsubscribe" as the Subject > > archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > "unsubscribe" as the Subject > archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives > > > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
