Modular applications is a feature that has been requested every once
in a while for many years.
It is basically the ability to create scalable Enterprise Applications.
Björn
On 25.5.2006, at 23:04, Rafael Vallejo wrote:
I like the idea of modular aplications it helps to make upgrades
easy, reuse of code and lot of stuff, but I only hear about Cocoa
here wich means Mac only, what about Windows and Linux, it should
point that way too.
I join this idea I hope RealSoft folks have this in mind I thing
there is a feature request about this, please to the person that
posted it refer us the URL so all of us can vote for it.
Stefan Pantke escribió:
OK, got the point ;-)
Yes, this would be very interesting and I would join.
But: Would this be possible? Once the RB compiled an app, there are
most likely no longer symbols of the framework inside, since - I
suppose -
all symbols get resolved and replaced during compile time.
I'd like a solution, which soft links all framework code. Don't
know, if
this would slow down each app. But using this schema, RB could
generate
pure executable file without the entire framework. Once you start
the app
the first time, the app could check for its framework and - if
not found -
start downloading its framework version - once for all RB apps, which
use the same one.
Well, just an idea.
Once RB switched fully to Cocoa, the system might probably move in
this
direction.
BTW:
While I still didn't upgrade to
RB 2K5 or 2K6, I just ordered VS 2005 Standard, since I'll like
to evaluate
the Windows Mobile 5.0 platform. It is really impressive, how
small .Net apps
are and that you can deploy your .Net apps using ClickOnce on a
webserver.
Dummy sample ClickOnce app: http://www.turingart.com/downloads/
sbrowser/sbrowser.htm
Moreover, .Net maintains each different version of an app fully
individual.
Thus, if you installed an app using ClickOnce and auto-updates at
a later point
of time, .Net maintains copies of version A and version B. Thus,
at each moment
of time, you might roll back from version B to version A. Nice.
Am 26.05.2006 um 00:29 schrieb Deane Venske:
That sounds like it would work nicely Stephan, but we still have
the problem that every console app would contain the RB
Framework and thus be rather large. I know the GUI framework is
probably the biggest bit of any system, but it's still going to
be a lot of overhead.
Does anyone else feel that this would be a nice feature request?
I'm thinking of wording it like this:
FEATURE REQUEST-->
Would like the ability to compile a project without the RB
framework that could then be called from within a project that
does contain the RB framework along with any plugin code needed
by the smaller frameworkless builds.
<--
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
