Hi, just wanted to inform you that I removed lNet from FCL. The reasons are various but biggest one is that FCL has too slow release cycle for now and that there will be additional changes on how it's handled itself when the packager hits the street.

I've added a local lnet subdir to the fppkg so it compiles ok with it. I suspect the packager will require a special version of lnet later anyhow.

lNet was in FCL only from 2.1.1 so it's not like I broke anyone's dreams :) Another reason for removal was the conflicts it made with installing the release lnet lazarus package if someone had 2.1.1 with lnet in FCL etc.

I think I'll add lNet as a package later when the new packaging system is working.

I don't know if I'm really happy with this. lNet was a usefull addition to the fcl. Now the fcl doesn't have any tcp/ip-components.

I had some plans to write a new sqldb-connection based on lNet. That's became difficult now.

About the slow release cycle, that's not only a problem with lNet, but also, for example, for the database-components. But for those who want the fastest-and-the-greatest, they can download it themselves.

And if they can't work with two different versions, they shoudn't download the latest versions themselves. If then can't handle that, it's their problem, not of those who know how it works. ie. the ones who want lNet in the fcl.

I think you can better educate newbies, then make things fool-proof. If you want that, use visual-basic.

Joost

I think you'd find it even more difficult by the time my API change of callbacks would hit FCL (next release will have it). It was needed but ugly. LNet isn't stable enough for FCL yet.

About the slow release cycle, that's not only a problem with lNet, but also, for example, for the database-components. But for those who want the fastest-and-the-greatest, they can download it themselves.

It's also about me having to have modified makefiles so when I debug stuff/work with laz I'm sure that there's no fcl version going on.

I think it'd be best if lNet went into packages but I want to wait to see how the whole new packaging will look before doing anything now.

Ales

Joost van der Sluis wrote

I had some plans to write a new sqldb-connection based on lNet. That's became difficult now.

The solution is to pull sqldb out also, not to push lNet in ;-).

Micha

I think that networking components should be all included ...

... however, we all know that the project is still young and there is a lot of road ahead ... (first of all there is still the package installer to fix)

So if that's done for compatibility-stability problems, it's a temporary choice...

The new connection could also become part of lnet, offcourse. ;)

Joost