> J C Calvarese wrote:
>> Sounds great to me. Did you have to write something in Delphi? I think anything would be good as a starting point. Please give me a hint as to what you did.  I'm dying to know.
>>

Maybe I should explain something.
Everything that's available for Delphi can be available for the Apollo
library. That's both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because, as you
know, Delphi is very popular and there're an incredible large of components
for it. But a curse because to use them, there's always gonna be the need to
write wrappers just like in Apollo: a dll in Delphi, import it as a DM lib,
write function declarations (which can be easy anyway, considering there's
del2d) and, if you want to give it proper use, write D classes around those
functions, and then, just then, use the library, always depending on the
dll. And most likely you're gonna end up depending on various dlls (suppose
you're writing an oe clone: you'll need the Apollo dll, the dll for the
outlook bar, dll for this, dll for that...).
As you say, it's a starting point, but for what I think I'm gonna be doing,
I don't think it's good enough. That's the reason I was playing with so many
tools.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal

Carlos Santander B. wrote:
>>J C Calvarese wrote:
>>
>>>Sounds great to me. Did you have to write something in Delphi? I
>>>think anything would be good as a starting point. Please give me a
>>>hint as to what you did.  I'm dying to know.
> 
> Maybe I should explain something.
> Everything that's available for Delphi can be available for the Apollo
> library. That's both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because, as you
> know, Delphi is very popular and there're an incredible large of components
> for it. But a curse because to use them, there's always gonna be the need to
> write wrappers just like in Apollo: a dll in Delphi, import it as a DM lib,
> write function declarations (which can be easy anyway, considering there's
> del2d) and, if you want to give it proper use, write D classes around those
> functions, and then, just then, use the library, always depending on the
> dll. And most likely you're gonna end up depending on various dlls (suppose
> you're writing an oe clone: you'll need the Apollo dll, the dll for the
> outlook bar, dll for this, dll for that...).
> As you say, it's a starting point, but for what I think I'm gonna be doing,
> I don't think it's good enough. That's the reason I was playing with so many
> tools.

There are always trade-offs. As hard drive sizes continue to increase, programmers tend to create bigger programs. In theory, it should be possible to write good programs that are only 100 KB, but what's the big deal if it's a megabyte or two? Disk space is cheap.

I'm in favor of optimizing and getting the bloat out, but don't beat yourself up if you think your library weighs too much.

And, yes, I'd like to see your code for the COM thing. But I'm not in a hurry. Whenever you're not busy...

> 
> -----------------------
> Carlos Santander Bernal

-- 
Justin
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

J C Calvarese wrote:
> And, yes, I'd like to see your code for the COM thing. But I'm not in a hurry. Whenever you're not busy...
>

Check out the other forums (http://s3.invisionfree.com/ln5yrestgv), there're
instructions.

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal