Roy,

<< If its possible I'd prefer not to have to ship any dll's just the .exe.
My bet is that a lot of us will feel the same. Even so I'm fascinated about
"a UI to the custom functions" - tell me more. >>

It's just a project wrapper like the TWebModule stuff in Delphi.  It simply
puts a friendly face on the DLL and saves you from all of the tiresome
stuff.  Also, I'd like to point out that it may not even be necessary in a
lot of cases to even use external functions - you can define functions
entirely in PSM now so you may not need the DLLs unless you're doing some
really low-level stuff.  For example, custom functions that run queries and
return values from the queries or other types of general database activity
won't require an external function.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Eryk,

<< Good, so long as the source is there things can be patched back the way
they were where needed. If these really are DLLs (and not packages) then
marshalling object references back and forth via virtual/abstract wrappers
(or something similar) would be rather tiresome. >>

You couldn't pass object references in V4 to custom functions, so nothing
has changed in that respect.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Tim,

> You couldn't pass object references in V4 to custom functions, so nothing
> has changed in that respect.

I can (and do) have objects in the server address space that custom
functions reference. Those references would have to be marshalled to the
DLLs and that would get awkward compared to the current architecture.
For example, I have a global list of active COM port objects and several
of custom functions interrogate those ports to create their results.

Eryk

Eryk,

<< I can (and do) have objects in the server address space that custom
functions reference. Those references would have to be marshalled to the
DLLs and that would get awkward compared to the current architecture. For
example, I have a global list of active COM port objects and several of
custom functions interrogate those ports to create their results. >>

Well, if you would have asked me, I would have told you not to do that.

--
Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com

Tim Young [Elevate Software] wrote:

> Well, if you would have asked me, I would have told you not to do that.

Not when I put them there back around 4.12 you wouldn't (didn't). Still,
it isn't important - so long as the source still ships it shouldn't be
hard to fix. Patch out GetProcAddress and patch in function pointers
internal to the EXE.

Eryk