Xojo Conferences
MBSSep2018MunichDE
XDCMay2019MiamiUSA

[MBS] REALbasic 2008r2 (MBS Xojo Plugin Mailinglist archive)

Back to the thread list
Previous thread: [MBS] 8.2pr13
Next thread: [MBS] [ANN] MBS REALbasic plugins with 20000 functions in 1000 classes


RE: [MBS] DOM classes for Mac OS X HTMLViewer   -   Giovanni
  [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Christian Schmitz
   Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Garth Hjelte
    Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Christian Schmitz
    Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Garth Hjelte
     Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Christian Schmitz
     Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Garth Hjelte
      Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Christian Schmitz
   Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Chris Smolinski
   Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Joe Huber
   Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Garth Hjelte
   Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2   -   Tim Jones
   [MBS] Re: REALbasic 2008r2   -   Christian Schmitz

[MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 05.04.08 10:15 (Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:15:07 +0200)
From: Christian Schmitz
Hi,

just to remember everyone:

In case you plan to use REALbasic 2008r2, you will need new MBS Plugins.

I hope to have the 8.2 final plugins being compatible.

Gruß
Christian

-

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 05.04.08 20:11 (Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:11:29 -0500)
From: Garth Hjelte
At 04:15 AM 4/5/2008, you wrote:

>just to remember everyone:
>In case you plan to use REALbasic 2008r2, you will need new MBS Plugins.
>I hope to have the 8.2 final plugins being compatible.

Just a question (no judgement or anything)

Does this require purchasing another years license of MBS just to be
able to use RB2008r2 with MBS?

(IMHO, although this is arguable, I wish software products, if new
versions are to be paid for, there would be some support for older
versions where simple compatibility issues were addressed without
having to pay for a whole batch of things you don't necessarily need.
I don't think having to pay for a new version is completely unfair,
but I think it would be more fair to continue support for something
you already sold by addressing small things like this.)

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

_______________________________________________
Mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info mailing list
<email address removed>
http://ml01.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 05.04.08 20:22 (Sat, 5 Apr 2008 21:22:03 +0200)
From: Christian Schmitz
Garth Hjelte <<email address removed>> wrote:

> At 04:15 AM 4/5/2008, you wrote:
>
> >just to remember everyone:
> >In case you plan to use REALbasic 2008r2, you will need new MBS Plugins.
> >I hope to have the 8.2 final plugins being compatible.
>
> Does this require purchasing another years license of MBS just to be
> able to use RB2008r2 with MBS?

Well, Garth, your license ended on 31st Dec 2007.
So you need to buy the update if you want to use the plugins from 2008.
If you update today, you get all the 2008 plugins and the first quarter
of 2009.

> (IMHO, although this is arguable, I wish software products, if new
> versions are to be paid for, there would be some support for older
> versions where simple compatibility issues were addressed without
> having to pay for a whole batch of things you don't necessarily need.
> I don't think having to pay for a new version is completely unfair,
> but I think it would be more fair to continue support for something
> you already sold by addressing small things like this.)

Well, do you do that for your software?

I don't think I could be able to handle bug fixing older versions. I
give you one year of free updates to make sure you can report all bugs
you find and get fixes as free releases.

But I can complain about RS the same you can complain about me. They
changed a lot of things in RB 2008r2:

* Half the Plugin SDK got deprecated and I must work around the changes
which is a lot of work.
* I updated over 900 classes 2 months ago to fix the deprecation on the
old constructor/destructor naming. Three days of work for nothing.
* This morning I fixed several issues to get my plugins running again.

Nearly every release of RB changes something which leads into a lot of
work for me. I hate that, too.

Gruß
Christian

-

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 06.04.08 01:40 (Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:40:52 -0500)
From: Garth Hjelte
At 02:22 PM 4/5/2008, you wrote:

> > (IMHO, although this is arguable, I wish software products, if new
> > versions are to be paid for, there would be some support for older
> > versions where simple compatibility issues were addressed without
> > having to pay for a whole batch of things you don't necessarily need.
> > I don't think having to pay for a new version is completely unfair,
> > but I think it would be more fair to continue support for something
> > you already sold by addressing small things like this.)

>Well, do you do that for your software?

I do. All updates are free. In my case, updates include bug-fixing
and new formats (it's a music file format convertor, and new formats
come out often).

>I don't think I could be able to handle bug fixing older versions. I
>give you one year of free updates to make sure you can report all
>bugs you find and get fixes as free releases.

That makes sense, but I was just commenting about not being about to
use the older license just because RealSoftware decided to cut a
compatibility cord. I know that's not your problem technically.

>But I can complain about RS the same you can complain about me. They
>changed a lot of things in RB 2008r2:
>
>* Half the Plugin SDK got deprecated and I must work around the
>changes which is a lot of work.
>* I updated over 900 classes 2 months ago to fix the deprecation on
>the old constructor/destructor naming. Three days of work for nothing.
>* This morning I fixed several issues to get my plugins running again.
>
>Nearly every release of RB changes something which leads into a lot
>of work for me. I hate that, too.

Absolutely, I know this goes both ways. Part of the reason for my
post was to hear you out; I have no problem "paying for progress" so
to say, but on the other hand it's important that we all know (at
least our market) isn't slipping into a sort of "planned
obsolescence" or "conspired updating sales model". I know of clear
examples of this so I know it's not completely unheard of.

Like, for example, if all RB did with RB2008r2 was change a
non-consequential thing that broke all or some previous plugins,
PERHAPS it would be appropriate to think that plugin developers could
or should make some effort to support their previous customers non
gratis. I know I appreciate it when I buy something (cars, toasters,
mountain bikes) and I get service and support just a bit beyond the
call non gratis.

So, sorry I haven't been in the loop, but what happened with RB? Did
they make ALL plugins obsolete? And in your opinion, was there a good
reason for it? DId they have "bad design" beforehand?

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

_______________________________________________
Mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info mailing list
<email address removed>
http://ml01.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 06.04.08 08:35 (Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:35:42 +0200)
From: Christian Schmitz
Garth Hjelte <<email address removed>> wrote:

> >Well, do you do that for your software?
>
> I do. All updates are free. In my case, updates include bug-fixing
> and new formats (it's a music file format convertor, and new formats
> come out often).

Ok. I develop myself a few stand alone applications for end users.
There I may have a big upgrade each year.

And if something happens like a new OS version, I can of course just
pick the old source and recompile with a new RB version, apply a few
patches and get the version from last year working on the current OS.

But as a software developer it is normally cheaper to maintain only one
version.

> Absolutely, I know this goes both ways. Part of the reason for my
> post was to hear you out; I have no problem "paying for progress" so
> to say, but on the other hand it's important that we all know (at
> least our market) isn't slipping into a sort of "planned
> obsolescence" or "conspired updating sales model".

I did not ask them to break my plugins.

> So, sorry I haven't been in the loop, but what happened with RB? Did
> they make ALL plugins obsolete? And in your opinion, was there a good
> reason for it? DId they have "bad design" beforehand?

Any old plugin will fail if:

- it uses the new keyword "attributes".
- it uses constructors named like the class.
- it uses the "socket" class.
- it uses deprecated plugin functions.

For the constructors any old RB code or plugin code will simply stop
working. For the deprecated plugin functions, at some point the plugins
will simply fail silently.

If RS wants, they can change RB to simply work without those changes,
but they want to clean their code.

Gruß
Christian

-

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 06.04.08 22:09 (Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:09:29 -0500)
From: Garth Hjelte
At 02:35 AM 4/6/2008, you wrote:

>Any old plugin will fail if:
>
>- it uses the new keyword "attributes".

Probably as rarity.

>- it uses constructors named like the class.

Isn't this a standard thing? Why WOULDN'T someone write C/C++ code
where the constructor was named like the class?

>- it uses the "socket" class.
>- it uses deprecated plugin functions.

Well, OK.

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

_______________________________________________
Mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info mailing list
<email address removed>
http://ml01.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 07.04.08 16:57 (Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:57:00 +0200)
From: Christian Schmitz
Garth Hjelte <<email address removed>> wrote:

> At 02:35 AM 4/6/2008, you wrote:
>
> >Any old plugin will fail if:
> >
> >- it uses the new keyword "attributes".
>
> Probably as rarity.

5 times in my plugins.

> >- it uses constructors named like the class.
>
> Isn't this a standard thing? Why WOULDN'T someone write C/C++ code
> where the constructor was named like the class?

RB was created with constructors named like the class. Years later they
added the possibility to use "Constructor" as the name of the
constructor. Today you must use "Constructor" as the name.

In C++ the constructor has the name of the class.

I kept my plugin backward compatible as much, but some older RB version
will not accept "Constructor" as constructor name, but I hope nobody is
still using that old RB versions.

Gruß
Christian

-

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 05.04.08 20:29 (Sat, 5 Apr 2008 15:29:33 -0400)
From: Chris Smolinski
>At 04:15 AM 4/5/2008, you wrote:
>
>>just to remember everyone:
>>In case you plan to use REALbasic 2008r2, you will need new MBS Plugins.
>>I hope to have the 8.2 final plugins being compatible.
>
>Just a question (no judgement or anything)
>
>Does this require purchasing another years license of MBS just to be
>able to use RB2008r2 with MBS?
>
>(IMHO, although this is arguable, I wish software products, if new
>versions are to be paid for, there would be some support for older
>versions where simple compatibility issues were addressed without
>having to pay for a whole batch of things you don't necessarily need.
>I don't think having to pay for a new version is completely unfair,
>but I think it would be more fair to continue support for something
>you already sold by addressing small things like this.)

IMHO, this creates development nightmares, having to support multiple
parallel versions.

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 05.04.08 20:37 (Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:37:31 -0700)
From: Joe Huber
At 2:11 PM -0500 4/5/08, Garth Hjelte wrote:
>I don't think having to pay for a new version is completely unfair,
>but I think it would be more fair to continue support for something
>you already sold by addressing small things like this.

That of course creates a lot of extra and duplicate work. You would
wind up paying for that unnecessary work one way or the other,
whether in your initial license or as a higher cost for upgrades.

Fundamentally there's no point to doing fixes to older versions.
Software is a train that you board and it keeps on moving. :-)

Regards,
Joe Huber
_______________________________________________
Mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info mailing list
<email address removed>
http://ml01.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 06.04.08 01:43 (Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:43:43 -0500)
From: Garth Hjelte
5At 02:29 PM 4/5/2008, you wrote:

> >(IMHO, although this is arguable, I wish software products, if new
> >versions are to be paid for, there would be some support for older
> >versions where simple compatibility issues were addressed without
> >having to pay for a whole batch of things you don't necessarily need.
> >I don't think having to pay for a new version is completely unfair,
> >but I think it would be more fair to continue support for something
> >you already sold by addressing small things like this.)

>IMHO, this creates development nightmares, having to support
>multiple parallel versions.

It's not hard at all actually. I personally deal with various
branches of my source code that I OEM out to different clients
willing to pay for it.

As a matter of fact, I have one I'm working with at the moment where
the client wanted Vista compatibility but did not want to pay for the
latest features that I'd developed over the past 2 years. So I took
the final branch made for this client - and it's old code, but I
comment well and work consistently - and I simply modified it to work in Vista.

See my other post directed to Christian.

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

_______________________________________________
Mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info mailing list
<email address removed>
http://ml01.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info

Re: [MBS] REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 07.04.08 17:40 (Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:40:16 -0700)
From: Tim Jones
At 2:11 PM -0500 4/5/08, Garth Hjelte wrote:
>
> I don't think having to pay for a new version is completely unfair,
> but I think it would be more fair to continue support for something
> you already sold by addressing small things like this.

In the plugin world, you should only expect the current version of a
plugin to work with the current release of the compiler environment.
This applies to every plugin I've ever used in Unix, Windows or Mac
environments. In each case, the plugin provider keeps you updated if
you keep you support contract current. You shouldn't expect a plugin
provider to go back to a previous version and make it compatible with
a new compiler environment. In fact, with the changes that go into
new compilers, it may not even be possible for the provider to offer
the compatibility required in the older plugins.

I believe that Christian's mechanism is quite fair for the solutions
that he provides. Goodness knows I've paid much more for far lesser
functionality and support in the Windows and Solaris worlds over the
years.

Tim

_______________________________________________
Mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info mailing list
<email address removed>
http://ml01.ispgateway.de/mailman/listinfo/mbsplugins_monkeybreadsoftware.info

[MBS] Re: REALbasic 2008r2
Date: 25.04.08 10:24 (Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:24:14 +0200)
From: Christian Schmitz
Christian Schmitz <<email address removed>> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just to remember everyone:
>
> In case you plan to use REALbasic 2008r2, you will need new MBS Plugins.
>
> I hope to have the 8.2 final plugins being compatible.

Update:

With recent changes in 2008r2, the plugin registration is no longer
working as well as a few global functions.

for example PNGStringToPictureMBS now raises a nil object exception
which I found while testing my ChartDirector examples with RB 2008r2.

I hope everything will work soon for the 8.3 release.

Still a few new plugin features may be delayed while i rewrite big parts
of the plugin code.

Gruß
Christian

-