[V4RB] Constructor?

[Thorsten Hohage]

On 2008-07-30, at 18:43, billmounce at comcast.net wrote:

> Thorsten,
>
> Thanks. When I started with Valentina 1 -- that was a long time ago  
> -- we always made a constructor for the database objects. Am I right  
> to assume that even when using classes to access Valentina (which I  
> assume is the way we did it way back then) that having a constructor  
> is no longer necessary?


No, the question if necessary or not is still the same - IMHO in most  
cases yes - BUT the big difference is the naming.

While "old style" RB was to name the constructor like the class name,  
e.g. a class is named "MyLittleDBObject" then the constructor was  
MyLittleDBObject(), too.

Real Software changed this to constructor() AFAIR with 5.5 and only  
made a note in the release note, that "old style" constructors may  
discontinued sometime in the future. Me and several others missed this  
post. So even starting my frameworks with the NEW RB 200x versions I  
used the "old style". With the rise of RB 2008 R3 RB now throws the  
"warnings" and it's clear old style won't work any longer.

You should seriously(!!!) check the RB list archives or forum, due to  
several issues on redesigning the code to fit the new schema.

HTH

regards,

Thorsten Hohage
-- 

Valentina Technology Evangelist
generic objects  GmbH - Leiter Solution Center Nord