Re: Nonsence about MFC
From: Bob Wolfe (rtwolfe_at_flexus.com)
Date: 09/22/04
- Next message: Lueko Willms: "Screen Section, Screen Events, Declaratives"
- Previous message: Bob Wolfe: "Re: Nonsence about MFC"
- In reply to: Robert Wagner: "Re: Nonsence about MFC"
- Next in thread: Bob Wolfe: "Re: Nonsence about MFC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:25:52 GMT
Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote:
>On 19 Sep 2004 20:04:12 -0700, riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
>>Robert Wagner <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote
>>
>>> >With Micro Focus, one could use Dialog System. No OO.
>>> >Or Flexus SP2. No OO.
>>>
>>> Same for Fujitsu's PowerCobol. I could be wrong, but I strongly
>>> suspect all three are written in C++ and are using MFC.
>>
>>Yes, you could well be completely wrong.
>>
>>According to Bob Wolfe, posting on this very group (so it can be
>>determined easily for those that prefer to use facts rather than
>>opinions):
>>
>>""" sp2.dll screen handler is written in C """
>>
>>Both SP2 and Dialog system date from before MFC was available. This
>>makes your claim unsupportable. Even a cursory glance at facts should
>>have shown you that it wasn't viable.
>>
>>> I say that
>>> because controls look and behave identically. Not sorta-kinda the
>>> same.
>>
>>You don't seem to know much about MFC, or indeed Windows at all. MFC
>>is just a thin OO (some might say: sorta OO) wrapper around the
>>standard Windows controls. They all look the same because they are
>>_Windows_, regardless of whether they are MFC.
>
>The Windows API doesn't support things like ListBox, ComboBox and
>scroll bars. That functionality is supplied by MFC (and VB and Swing).
>How do SP2 and Dialog mimic MFC so closely?
>
>Bob Wolfe: please ring in with the answer.
All of the above are Win32 controls.
....but way back in the early 1990's many of our customers wanted
bigger, better, faster or fancier type controls. Well......it seemed
that writing custom controls ourselves was a yeoman's task and
possibly an exercise in futility. Obviously, everyone would have very
unique needs for various types of controls. Therefore, we decided
that Microsoft's VBX control approach showed promise and began
supporting that.
Eventually, with the advent of the 32 bit version of Windows,
Microsoft introduced 32 bit OLE and OCX (Active X) controls, which
were even better.
So our VBX support evolved into OCX and OLE automation support. This
approach seems to have worked very well as it offers the opportunity
for a programmer to use one of tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of
unique user interface and non-user interface controls. It really
opened up a huge set of possibilities for enhancing one's COBOL
program.
The OLE automation also allows for the control of Microsoft Office
applications which seems to be of great interest as well.
Bob Wolfe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When replying by e-mail, make sure that you correct the e-mail address.
Check out The Flexus COBOL Page at http://www.flexus.com
- Next message: Lueko Willms: "Screen Section, Screen Events, Declaratives"
- Previous message: Bob Wolfe: "Re: Nonsence about MFC"
- In reply to: Robert Wagner: "Re: Nonsence about MFC"
- Next in thread: Bob Wolfe: "Re: Nonsence about MFC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
