Re: Abandoning indy



Eugene Mayevski wrote:

Hello!
You wrote on 28 Apr 2006 00:25:57 -0700:

HH> Eugene it's obvious that you are very much interested in the
HH> SSL/IOHandler stuff in Indy and you are pinpointing that and
making HH> Indy look all the same in all areas.

We have the same problems with other stuff before, but since we are
not working with it now, I can't comment in depth.

Also, that is not we, but our customers who are interested in SSL
stuf and in stable work of it with Indy. And we can't provide
stability due to Indy problems which we have to resolve ourselves. So
it turns that we should pay for indy bugs with our resources.


I got an idea Eugene, since you seem to know this pretty well and use
it extensively, why not contribute to "shaping" it how you see would be
good? You know Indy is Open Source and ready for contributions any time.
.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Abandoning indy
    ... HH> Eugene, with all due respect I do not agree with your point of view. ... What prevented the "designers" from making the IOHandler work the way they do in Indy 10 back in Indy 8? ...
    (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)
  • Re: Abandoning indy
    ... HH> Eugene it's obvious that you are very much interested in the ... HH> SSL/IOHandler stuff in Indy and you are pinpointing that and making ... HH> Indy look all the same in all areas. ... And we can't provide stability due to Indy problems which we have to resolve ourselves. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)
  • Re: Abandoning indy
    ... Eugene it's obvious that you are very much interested in the ... SSL/IOHandler stuff in Indy and you are pinpointing that and making ... Indy look all the same in all areas. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)