Hi Paul > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 06:46:48 -0800 > From: Paul McNett ? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: CVS and visual classes > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Brian Abbott wrote: > > > Even without using CVS or whatever, keeping all your classes in 1 vcx is > > bad practice IMHO. > > Well, what's the point of having a 'library' if it would only contain a > handful of books?
The SCX has exactly the same structure as the VCX. Why isn't an SCX called a screen library? ;) I mostly use a single UDF per PRG, never using the PRG as a procedure library. Let's learn from other industries. Does intel create a single blueprint with the designs for all of their CPUs or does each CPU get a single blueprint? No matter what, the physical structure of the classes at design time should be atomic just as the runtime manifestation of the objects should be atomic. This would improve collaboration. Only the classes needed would be included in the exe also. > I do agree that VFP's vcx doesn't lend itself to collaboration though. That's for sure! :) _______________________________________________ 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.
