1. win32lib v0.57.7
I've updated my web site with the current version of the Win32lib library.
There are some problems with Pixmaps and graphics routines.
If you are interested in helping debug this version, you can download it
from :
http://www.users.bigpond.com/ddparnell/euphoria/w320577.zip
The demo program PRETEND.EXW is a prime example that causes Windows to crash
due to resource leaks.
I might not be able to fix anything for two weeks as I'm on holidays next
weekend.
-------------
Derek.
2. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Derek,
Did you get the version of "RunDemos.exw" I sent you that was written to
reside in the "base" folder of Win32Lib? It's not in your current 57.7
download.
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Parnell" <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: win32lib v0.57.7
>
> I've updated my web site with the current version of the Win32lib library.
> There are some problems with Pixmaps and graphics routines.
>
> If you are interested in helping debug this version, you can download it
> from :
>
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/ddparnell/euphoria/w320577.zip
>
> The demo program PRETEND.EXW is a prime example that causes Windows to
crash
> due to resource leaks.
>
> I might not be able to fix anything for two weeks as I'm on holidays next
> weekend.
>
> -------------
> Derek.
>
>
>
>
3. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Derek,
Okdokey.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Parnell" <Derek.Parnell at SYD.RABOBANK.COM>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: win32lib v0.57.7
>
> Yes Dan, I did. However what is on the web site is not a "release" as
such.
> It is really a work-in-progress version because it can't really be used
for
> some apps (eg, the IDE!) due to bugs in it. I have spent some time fixing
> the resource leaks but there is still an issue with the graphics routines.
I
> was asked to place it on the site so that I could get some others to help
> debug it.
>
> Along with no RunDemos, there are no updated docs either. I wanted to
stick
> to debugging it for now.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Moyer [mailto:DANIELMOYER at prodigy.net]
> > Sent: Monday, 3 June 2002 10:27
> > To: EUforum
> > Subject: Re: win32lib v0.57.7
> >
> >
> >
> > Derek,
> >
> > Did you get the version of "RunDemos.exw" I sent you that was
> > written to
> > reside in the "base" folder of Win32Lib? It's not in your
> > current 57.7
> > download.
> >
> > Dan Moyer
> >
4. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Hi,
In releaseResourcesForID an integer is used to hold a windows resource
id, integers can be a maximum of 31 bits in size and one of the
resources that gets passed to it when my app runs is to big so I get a
type check error.
Changing the type of the variable "id" from integer to atom fixes the
problem for this routine (not sure if it's a problem in other
routines, none show up when I run my app).
Thomas Parslow (PatRat)
E-Mail/Jabber: tom at almostobsolete.net
ICQ: 26359483
5. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Derek wrote:
> The demo program PRETEND.EXW is a prime example that causes Windows to crash
> due to resource leaks.
This is what I think:
The resource leak causes createPen() called in drawLine()
and drawRectangle(). It creates a pen, but it is never released. The
replaceObject()
for this purpose doesn't work, because SelectObject doesn't return the previous
pen (we created), but the default (I guess) - because we releasedDC() since
then,
and the DC info for this object was reseted.
The error doesn't come up on Win2k, because it supports much larger number
of resources.
The bug similiar to the one reported a short time ago with wPuts(). I think
this shows win32lib resource managment really needs to be improved (refcount
for getDC/releaseDC). It's easy to say from my place, when I am not
the maintainer - so good luck Derek !
Martin
6. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
> I'd have to agree here. I might admit defeat on this problem because
> frankly I'm quite lost in your resource tracking methodology. I just
> hope 'improved' implies 'simplified' otherwise I won't be able to
> provide much support down the road...
Sad, but I'd have to agree here. The 'rush' to add more and more 'exotic' and
seldom used features is putting
reliability and adequate documentation further and further into the background.
I've almost given up on win32lib, using
API directly instead, because its easier to find my 'bugs', than try to deal
with win32lib's.
... or, to put it another way, my simple-mindedness can't follow the entangled
win32lib web anymore...
( jeepers, now I'm starting to 'nudge'... like Euman... :( )
7. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
< we are all tongue-in-cheek, or sumthin' ... >
> Thanks for this direction. I'm a big fan of simplification.
> How about the idea of stopping "enhancement" until it stabilises, then only
> adding new things when they are put to a vote and passed. That is, giving
> new ideas a real user-influenced priority system.
Did I mention you've done a great job so far?
Not sure I'd take that route too seriously,
'Committee's' always seem to kill things,
it's just... you know...
... we hate to see it 'broken' for so long !
I am, however, almost temped to sponsor a 'contest' to see who can break that
*huge* HTML into 5 or 6 nicely hyperlinked
chunks with a nifty little parser, asap.
( kinda like that RDS html,nice ! )
Wolf
8. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
> Is the size of the HTML docs an issue? I don't recall anyone mentioning
> that. I can break it up very easily if that is the case. Anyone else want
> his done?
It's been mentioned by others. On a P166/48meg/IE5.01, I can go for a cup of
coffee before it finds the first jump-to...
antique'r_Wolf
9. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Derek,
Actually, yes, the size is a problem for me, but I thought it was just my
system: clicking on a link in it brings up the linked to item, but also
results in a 30 second or more wait until I can do *anything* from that
place. I had started a parser to deal with that, but only got as far as
separating things into different files, not correctly linking them.
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Parnell" <Derek.Parnell at SYD.RABOBANK.COM>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: win32lib v0.57.7
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wolf [mailto:wolfritz at KING.IGS.NET]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2002 9:18
> > To: EUforum
> > Subject: Re: win32lib v0.57.7
> >
> >
>
> Yes, and thank you very much.
>
> > Not sure I'd take that route too seriously,
> > 'Committee's' always seem to kill things,
>
> Not in every case. I have actually had some positive experiences from well
> run 'committees'. The trick is to maintain openness and focus.
>
> > it's just... you know...
> > ... we hate to see it 'broken' for so long !
>
> Me too!!!! The reason it is taking so long is that I can't work on it
during
> the week, only at weekends and then only for a small portion of time. I'm
> very sorry that this is how is has to be.
>
> > I am, however, almost temped to sponsor a 'contest' to see
> > who can break that *huge* HTML into 5 or 6 nicely hyperlinked
> > chunks with a nifty little parser, asap.
>
> Is the size of the HTML docs an issue? I don't recall anyone mentioning
> that. I can break it up very easily if that is the case. Anyone else want
> his done?
>
> --------
> Derek.
>
> ==================================================================
>
>
> ==================================================================
>
>
>
>
10. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Hi Wolf,
Yes, Wolf, but I have upgraded one of my 386 mainframes
to P166-mmx just now just to see what a good
thing is win32lib v0.57.7 and IDE 
Yes, I see, both win32lib v0.57.7 and IDE are the very
good things. I think my efforts were not an extra work.
And I have Linux RH 7.2 installed on this machine too.
I wanted to test *all* things to compare a 386-25
and a P-166 with just *my own* eyes. 
But I see just now P-166 is really much faster
than my old good machines. 
Although they are not yet retired and will not.
There is no a bad hardware in the World
with Euphoria.
But, Wolf, you are right, progress is progress,
and a huge HTML is a huge HTML.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
----------
> Îò: Wolf <wolfritz at KING.IGS.NET>
> Êîìó: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> Òåìà: Re: win32lib v0.57.7
> Äàòà: 11 èþíÿ 2002 ã. 4:19
> > Is the size of the HTML docs an issue? I don't recall anyone mentioning
> > that. I can break it up very easily if that is the case. Anyone else
want
> > his done?
>
> It's been mentioned by others. On a P166/48meg/IE5.01, I can go for a cup
of coffee before it finds the first jump-to...
>
> antique'r_Wolf
>
11. Re: win32lib v0.57.7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12. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Hello all,
Pete wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:56:41 +0800, Derek Parnell
> <Derek.Parnell at SYD.RABOBANK.COM> wrote:
>>Thanks for this direction. I'm a big fan of simplification.
>>
>>How about the idea of stopping "enhancement" until it stabilises, then only
>>adding new things when they are put to a vote and passed. That is, giving
>>new ideas a real user-influenced priority system.
> Totally, 100%, absolutely, fine by me, etc.
> Personally, I've seen you say a few times "That's not how I would have
> written it" or "If I could start again, I would have..."
> Well, yes, you should *NOT* commit to two/three/four years work,
> especially when it may likely not be as good as w32lib is already.
> But you know full well that a failed experiment here & there is OK.
> Hmm, <thinking /> Apologies in advance if that sounds out of line.
> Pete
How about maintaining two different versions of Win32Lib:
one conservative version ("conservative" in it's best sense),
let's say "Win32Lib classic", and one experimental version,
let's say "Win32Lib future".
"Win32Lib classic" should be as stable and reliable as possible,
"Win32Lib future" could be used to experiment with cool new
features and new controls.
New features will only be taken over from "Win32Lib future" to
"Win32Lib classic" after they didn't cause any problem for
let's say 3 months.
Doing it this way will be more work, but one person could maintain
"Win32Lib classic", and someone else could maintain "Win32Lib future".
In this case, both should work close together, of course.
Just some ideas.
Best regards,
Juergen
13. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Juergen,
But isn't this how it's being done now?
On the RDS site is the latest *official* version of Win32Lib, v 0.55.1, and
at Derek's site is the latest "bleeding edge" version, 0.57.7, for which he
asks for help debugging.
Only problem I see with this is that we find the features of 57 so
interesting we start to use it before it's stable & finished! :)
Dan Moyer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Luethje" <jluethje at gmx.de>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: win32lib v0.57.7
>
> Hello all,
>
> Pete wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:56:41 +0800, Derek Parnell
> > <Derek.Parnell at SYD.RABOBANK.COM> wrote:
>
> >>Thanks for this direction. I'm a big fan of simplification.
> >>
> >>How about the idea of stopping "enhancement" until it stabilises, then
only
> >>adding new things when they are put to a vote and passed. That is,
giving
> >>new ideas a real user-influenced priority system.
>
> > Totally, 100%, absolutely, fine by me, etc.
>
> > Personally, I've seen you say a few times "That's not how I would have
> > written it" or "If I could start again, I would have..."
>
> > Well, yes, you should *NOT* commit to two/three/four years work,
> > especially when it may likely not be as good as w32lib is already.
>
> > But you know full well that a failed experiment here & there is OK.
>
> > Hmm, <thinking /> Apologies in advance if that sounds out of line.
>
> > Pete
>
> How about maintaining two different versions of Win32Lib:
> one conservative version ("conservative" in it's best sense),
> let's say "Win32Lib classic", and one experimental version,
> let's say "Win32Lib future".
>
> "Win32Lib classic" should be as stable and reliable as possible,
> "Win32Lib future" could be used to experiment with cool new
> features and new controls.
> New features will only be taken over from "Win32Lib future" to
> "Win32Lib classic" after they didn't cause any problem for
> let's say 3 months.
>
> Doing it this way will be more work, but one person could maintain
> "Win32Lib classic", and someone else could maintain "Win32Lib future".
> In this case, both should work close together, of course.
>
> Just some ideas.
> Best regards,
> Juergen
>
>
>
>
14. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Hello Dan,
you wrote:
> Juergen,
> But isn't this how it's being done now?
I don't know.
> On the RDS site is the latest *official* version of Win32Lib, v 0.55.1,
There is no resource leakage or other known serious bug in the "official"
version?
> and at Derek's site is the latest "bleeding edge" version, 0.57.7,
> for which he asks for help debugging.
And it is planned, that this will become the "official" version, only
without serious bugs like resource leakages?
> Only problem I see with this is that we find the features of 57 so
> interesting we start to use it before it's stable & finished! :)
If the answers to both questions above is "yes", than I agree with you.
> Dan Moyer
Best regards,
Juergen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juergen Luethje" <jluethje at gmx.de>
> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: win32lib v0.57.7
<snip>
>> How about maintaining two different versions of Win32Lib:
>> one conservative version ("conservative" in it's best sense),
>> let's say "Win32Lib classic", and one experimental version,
>> let's say "Win32Lib future".
>>
>> "Win32Lib classic" should be as stable and reliable as possible,
>> "Win32Lib future" could be used to experiment with cool new
>> features and new controls.
>> New features will only be taken over from "Win32Lib future" to
>> "Win32Lib classic" after they didn't cause any problem for
>> let's say 3 months.
>>
>> Doing it this way will be more work, but one person could maintain
>> "Win32Lib classic", and someone else could maintain "Win32Lib future".
>> In this case, both should work close together, of course.
>>
>> Just some ideas.
>> Best regards,
>> Juergen
15. Re: win32lib v0.57.7
Juergen,
Good questions. I wasn't sure about either of them, but I see Derek says
the answer IS yes for both of them.
Dan Moyer
Juergen wrote:
>
> Hello Dan,
>
> you wrote:
>
> > Juergen,
>
> > But isn't this how it's being done now?
>
> I don't know.
>
> > On the RDS site is the latest *official* version of Win32Lib, v 0.55.1,
>
> There is no resource leakage or other known serious bug in the "official"
> version?
>
> > and at Derek's site is the latest "bleeding edge" version, 0.57.7,
> > for which he asks for help debugging.
>
> And it is planned, that this will become the "official" version, only
> without serious bugs like resource leakages?
>
> > Only problem I see with this is that we find the features of 57 so
> > interesting we start to use it before it's stable & finished! :)
>
> If the answers to both questions above is "yes", than I agree with you.
>
> > Dan Moyer
>
> Best regards,
> Juergen
>
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Juergen Luethje" <jluethje at gmx.de>
> > To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: win32lib v0.57.7
>
> <snip>
>
> >> How about maintaining two different versions of Win32Lib:
> >> one conservative version ("conservative" in it's best sense),
> >> let's say "Win32Lib classic", and one experimental version,
> >> let's say "Win32Lib future".
> >>
> >> "Win32Lib classic" should be as stable and reliable as possible,
> >> "Win32Lib future" could be used to experiment with cool new
> >> features and new controls.
> >> New features will only be taken over from "Win32Lib future" to
> >> "Win32Lib classic" after they didn't cause any problem for
> >> let's say 3 months.
> >>
> >> Doing it this way will be more work, but one person could maintain
> >> "Win32Lib classic", and someone else could maintain "Win32Lib future".
> >> In this case, both should work close together, of course.
> >>
> >> Just some ideas.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Juergen
>
>
>
>
