Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / lazarus / 2003-08

application, forms, win32

2 messages · 2 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Michael Van Canneyt
to Marco van de Voort: This is more of a Delphi and/or win32 question, BUT. I'm playing with ICS, and got some…
Marco van de Voort wrote 20 lines
This is more of a Delphi and/or win32 question, BUT. I'm playing with ICS, and got some console programs running. However one of the demoes uses unit forms, but only to keep messages flowing. (it is a console unit) { session is connecting or application terminated. } while WSocket1.State in [wsConnecting] do begin Application.ProcessMessages; if Application.Terminated then break; end; if WSocket1.State = wsConnected then begin WSocket1.ReadLine(15, Buffer); (those application lines are probably the only forms stuff used) Can I fake this easily?

Yes. It's essentially a loop.

While PeekMessage() do
  begin
  TranslateMessage();
  DispatchMessage();
  end;

But there is a version of ICS that has a 'custommessageloop' procedure which does exactly that.

Anybody have a skeleton win32 application object ?

See custapp.pp in FCL.

Michael.

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort

This is more of a Delphi and/or win32 question, BUT.

I'm playing with ICS, and got some console programs running.

However one of the demoes uses unit forms, but only to keep messages flowing. (it is a console unit)

 { session is connecting or application terminated.               }
    while WSocket1.State in [wsConnecting] do begin
        Application.ProcessMessages;
        if Application.Terminated then
            break;
    end;
    if WSocket1.State = wsConnected then begin
        WSocket1.ReadLine(15, Buffer);

(those application lines are probably the only forms stuff used)

Can I fake this easily?
Anybody have a skeleton win32 application object ?

Is there a lowlevel unit of the LCL that I could use instead?

Reply by email