ZEOS development

[TurboRascal]

What's up with ZEOS? Their stable release (the number of the beast  ) is ancient, and so is the alpha release (7.0). I understand people are using trunk, but all this doesn't create much confidence - what's the future of it? Also, for serious programming both ways are a bit unsettling - having to rely on a very old release or a potentially unstable development snapshots...

[marcov]

Basically the old maintainer (Marc) got less time halfway between 6.6 and after the 7.0 alpha. (which was D2009+ and FPC compat)
A new maintainer took over, and I did some fpc related patching.

Since 6.6 is very old and 7.0 testing is well, testing. My opinion is to forget about labels and test them yourself.

btw, I'm using the old 7.0 alpha in production, and that is reasonably fine. I plan to update it to trunk in the coming months, and at the same time to go
from Delphi XE to Lazarus.

[JD]

I've been using the 7.0 alpha SVN version (I last updated 3 days ago) in production and it seems to be working fine. In fact I've been on the 7.0 alpha version for almost 2 years now.   

This version now has event alerters for Firebird and PostgreSQL. There are a few blips but nothing really major and all these blips are quickly resolved by asking questions on the Zeos forums.

[BigChimp]

Looks like somebody is even more conservative about version numbers than the Lazarus team

Ok, I do understand that this version was alpha due to maintainers not having enough time to further develop etc, but after it turns out that that version is the most stable one, promoting its version number seems like a sensible idea to lessen confusion...

[JD]

Looks like somebody is even more conservative about version numbers than the Lazarus team

Ok, I do understand that this version was alpha due to maintainers not having enough time to further develop etc, but after it turns out that that version is the most stable one, promoting its version number seems like a sensible idea to lessen confusion...

Ah! Alas, I fully agree with you.

[marcov]

Looks like somebody is even more conservative about version numbers than the Lazarus team

Zeos had a discontinuity in development. Lazarus hasn't had such dicontinuity, so that is not comparable

Ok, I do understand that this version was alpha due to maintainers not having enough time to further develop etc, but after it turns out that that version is the most stable one, promoting its version number seems like a sensible idea to lessen confusion...

Well, only the 7alpha properly supported D2009+, that might have tipped the scales a bit more. I use Postgresql with it btw, but the app is fairly simple

[JD]

Well, only the 7alpha properly supported D2009+, that might have tipped the scales a bit more. I use Postgresql with it btw, but the app is fairly simple

My application is fairly complicated (connection pools, remote connection,  threads etc) but 7.0 alpha still works fine. Honestly, I've not had serious problems with it. I hope it continues that way. 

[ojn]

See: http://lazarus.firmos.at/index.php/topic,16353.msg100741.html#msg100741 .

HTH,
Jerry

[TurboRascal]

See: http://lazarus.firmos.at/index.php/topic,16353.msg100741.html#msg100741 .

Interesting... so another stable version from the old 6.x branch is on the way... I guess that will be quite fine for us, since the main task for 7.x is Delphi 2009+ unicode string compatibility AFAIK...