Michael- It *was* for performance reasons; if you think about it, VCX classes are stored in tables, which have to be "converted" to code at some point. PRG-based classes *are* code. I know his decision was based on quite a bit of real world experience.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael J. Babcock, MCP Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 10:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PRG vs VCX based classes for non-visual objects (I asked this recently but didn't get a response....vfp9) I thought Bo Durban had changed his GDI+ classes from VCX-based to PRG-based but I couldn't learn the reason why he did so...I thought it had something to do with performance but that didn't seem to make sense since once it's loaded in memory, it should be the same imo. Can someone comment as to why you would want to design a NON-VISUAL class in a VCX (other than preferring the GUI look for seeing the methods/events in dropdowns)? tia, --Michael [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@comcast.net ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
