Board index » cppbuilder » Why OWL was dropped?

2007-05-06 07:24:37 AM
cppbuilder9
"Ed Mulroy" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >ha scritto nel messaggio
money do you want to reveal it?
Is one of these?
- Borland realized that OWL was better than MFC and decided that fighting
against M$ was not a good idea
- Borland realized that MFC was better than OWL and decided that fighting
against M$ was not a good idea
- The TeamB members realized that MFC was better than OWL and forced Borland
to drop it (the role of the TeamB members in this story has always been
obscure)
- OWL was stolen by Borland from someone else code that after some years
wanted it back
- MS realized that OWL was better than MFC and decided to give some money to
Borland to drop it
- The Delphi team payed to drop it
- George Bush wanted to learn MFC. (After he failed he decided to do
something else)
Ciao, Luigi
 

In article <463d1235$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Luigi wrote:
(legal?) reason why they can't talk about it.
Have you seen en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_Windows_Library ?
The interesting bits I hadn't known about before are the collaboration between
Borland and Novell to produce OWL for AppWare and the commercial version of OWL
from software UNO.
I doubt that the breakdown of the relationship with Novell had any major effect
on OWL within Borland -- especially as new OWL versions were still being
released some time after it all happened -- but it could be that some rights in
OWL were signed over to Software UNO and that Borland and UNO subsequently
failed to agree conditions/terms for continued development of OWL as something
to be given away free with Borland compilers.
.. or it could all be part of the tragic "Inprise" screw-up. Maybe Software
UNO just flatly refused to deal with a company with such a stupid name? The
timing is about right.
Cheers,
Daniel.
 

"Daniel James" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje
Originally was only to cover OWL and MFC needs, they increased to support
more functions as newers versions of the frameworks appeared.
The company still offers the product (new site :
www.softwareuno.com/ ), but I think that WINELIB offers now
a better coverage of Windows API (and it's free :) )
Saludos
Sebastian
 

{smallsort}

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Daniel James < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
at least I haven't been able to drag it out of anyone... FWIW, We just
republished the source code on code central (with the other partner CD
stuff)
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, David Dean
[CodeGear] wrote:
he knows something about it as he wrote:
the very least it may satisfy your own curiosity.
Cheers,
Daniel.
 

A long, long time ago... when OWL was first released, was there was a
relationship with Borland and the Whitewater Group? I remember that the
Whitewater Group's Object Graphics Library was discontinued a little while
later.
"Daniel James" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

The story as I know, is that the original OWL was developed by 'Whitewater
Group'
and was implemented in 'Actor'/
Borland adquired OWL and implemented in C++ and Pascal, and also
adquired/licensed
'Whitewater Group Resource Toolkit' wich I presume was renamed as 'Borland
Resource Workshop'.
But I don't think that Whitewater Group was claiming some patent violation,
Borland dropped OWL in 1998 / 1999, 8 years after the original contract, by
that time Borland was in war with MS (in the market and in the court) and
that war was ended when MS buyed a large stock of Borland and 'induced' a
cross-license agreement.
Saludos
Sebastian
"Ken Wilkinson" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje

The first version of OWL was dropped voluntarily by Borland so they
could refashion it to use the fabulous technology of MESSAGE MAPS!!!!!
After all, MFC used message maps and Microsoft never does anything
wrong.... Also, the first OWL had some proprietary syntax for handling
windows message -- syntax that I might add was not half-bad at all,
compared to the dreaded message maps -- but Borland wanted their
framework to be pure C++ syntax so they had to refashion it a bit.
I have been toying with MFC and the Codejock toolkit built on top of
MFC, and at first was impressed at the speed and true pixel-perfect look
of it all. But the crazy framework wore me out and I really did not
feel like putting my fate 100% in the hands of Codejock, considering the
MFC third-party controls market is virtually nil, so I am sticking with
the VCL system.
 

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Mike Vance
wrote:
right to drop it.
The important thing to understand about message maps is that they're just
arrays of data that let you find a handler for a message from its ID
without a humungous case statement. That's a pretty standard technique for
doing that sort of thing; certainly not rocket science, not even in
1990-ish. There's really nothing Microsoft-specific about them (I doubt MS
even coined the name), and they do provide a reasonably neat solution. The
only kludgey thing about them is that they use the preprocessor heavily to
make the code simpler and more readable -- we might prefer some sort of
notation using templates today.
Cheers,
Daniel.
 

Mike:
The first version of OWL was not dropped.
It was replaced by an more C++ compatible version (DDVT was a propietary
extension,
as VCL and CLI are). Even a conversor was included (OWLCVT), so Borland did
really good
that time.
Looking for more info, I found an interesting article, but this time about a
suit between Borland and
Symantec, who adquired the 'Whitewater group'.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NEW/is_1992_Sept_17/ai_12662991
It seem that 'Whitewater group' was running out of money (a co-founder
switched to Borland, and I found info that another one to MS to integrate
the Visual C++ team), wich allow to Symantec adquired it.
Saludos
Sebas
"Mike Vance" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje

new C++ frameworks implementing them in the future; any frameworks of
significance, that is. In my fallible opinion the message maps are a
bad idea.
 

How would you implement a non-message map way to handle messages in C++?
. Ed

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Mike Vance
wrote:
that traditionally surrounds them?
Have you seen this?
p-stade.sourceforge.net/ketchup/index.html
Cheers,
Daniel.
 

Daniel James < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Alan Bellingham
--
Team Browns
ACCU Conference 2008: 2-5 April 2008 - Oxford (probably), UK
 

Daniel James wrote:
bring it in OWLNext too ...
Jogy