Michael J. Babcock, MCP wrote: > (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)?
Paragraph 1: you are asking about converting from vcx to prg. Paragraph 2: you are asking about converting from prg to vcx. Anyway, I can offer the following benefits for doing *all* classes in code instead of VCX: 1) Source control. Your source is plain-text, so source control can merge and diff and offer all kinds of things that you just can't get with VCX. You can approach it, but you can't reach it, using vcx. 2) Performance... possibly. The VCX contains the compiled object code so it is probably the database lookup that cuts out some overhead. But probably very little overhead, realistically. Of course, going code makes you lose the benefits of the VFP IDE, since it isn't a 2-way street. -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com _______________________________________________ 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] ** 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.
