You’re welcome, Brandon. We just love hearing what people are doing with Xojo so your post was a pleasure to read.
3 Likes
I’ve been running a 1.0 xojo web app since 2015 that has been very reliable for our customers. We are a small startup, one developer and a few employees that help with manufacturing. This tool let me take my VB6 knowledge and make cool products. I can see why people are livid about killing off old stuff. 1.0 was supported for a really long time by tech standards. I’m really grateful for everyone that’s sticking around so we can continue to make awesome things!
And that is your final answer to all your customers???
If one of my kids drop the sugar bowl on the floor…
I would appreciate that they at least trying to clean up the mess the have make… instead of saying … Yeah dad, we looked at the mess and because we have found in the past that unless you do it nearly 100% perfectly, it’s better to not do it at all … GO SIT IN THE NAUGHTY CHAIR 
And as I said before… Your renaming a event and a property that’s fixed … It would take me about 80 to 100 hours to write that… Perfect engine for refactoring code in the editor (something we as customers are screaming about for last 10 years???)) …You don’t have to rewrite our code … 
I’m with Geoff on this one. I don’t want my code touched by some automated conversion algorithm unless and until I hit run and it’s compiled. I’d rather do the legwork myself than try to track down an issue that might have crept in. The advantages are that I know my code is going to match the current version I’m working in, I have to look at the code and I’ll sometimes see issues or edge cases I hadn’t noticed before, or I might see a better way or writing that code which I didn’t know when I originally wrote it.
Automation is nice, sure, but in my opinion there are times when you should do things manually. This type of conversion is a prime example. Since I’ve been converting my products to Web 2.0, I’ve been rewriting a lot of my Xojo and JavaScript code to perform better.
11 Likes
This ^^^^^
2 Likes
The Xojo compiler could just learn alias names for events and internally match “Open” and “Opening” to be the same. That would remove the need to change names at all.
3 Likes
Sure, it could, but it’s trivial to replace an Open event handler with an Opening event handler. Most folks aren’t using the Open event of every control, rather they use a common Open event, such as the one on the window to do their loading.
No, I actually would prefer a compiler change. Allow alias names for methods, so the compiler would take two names for one thing.
Would also apply to methods or properties, which got renamed for API 2.0 stuff.
Like LastIndex vs. LastAddedRow in Listbox controls.
7 Likes
If you don’t have subclasses then renaming events is trivial. I have a class with child and grandchild where renaming really messed the classes up in 2019r2.
Still think that renaming events is as useful as the AddRow for arrays and listboxes.
4 Likes
I’d prefer they spend time on other things. To each their own.
I have plenty of subclasses. Using IsEventImplemented, the API Include In panel, and/or XojoVersion, I implemented a solution that can handle either Open or Opening. Either way, we’re a number of releases in the future from this argument. All languages go through things like this, not just Xojo. They can either choose to focus their time on improving the language and environment or spend a lot of time making old code automatically match the new API.
If we’re going forward, let’s go forward. The more I use API 2.0, the more I prefer it, and I was very unhappy when it was first released. I still have, probably, a year or two of supporting customers who will continue to use API 1.0, and that’s OK. A little extra work on my part, but I know that the scales will tip at some point and I’ll be able to focus entirely on API 2.0.
I understand the arguments and complaints. I made many of the same ones when API 2.0 was first unleashed. But it’s the nature of the beast. Technology advances, you either adapt or give up.
1 Like
Wasn’t that something Xojo Inc. kept for use internally?
It’s a great way for the Web 2.0 framework to know which events are implemented and so have only mouse/keyboard events sent to server if someone listens.
It’s undocumented, but still exists and functions. It was added for just these scenarios.
Either way, these are old arguments.
IsEventImplemented is not documented by Xojo … I asked xojo about it in feb this year, because it’s a nice thing to have…
This is there respond :
We created it and releases it when we had the mixture of API 1 and API 2 event names. Those changes were rolled back so we don’t see nearly as much of a need for it. To me, it does make sense to remove it because it’s something else to document and it seems like it’s just confusing to try to explain to people what it’s used for or why they would need it.
So I don’t think it’s save to use this … MHO also example of vague communication from Xojo …
If/when it breaks, I’ll deal with that, just like I don’t absolutely have to convert every line of my API 1.0 projects to API 2.0. It’s currently useful for just the scenarios that people are concerned about. I do, however, recommend that people either go to API 2.0 or don’t. If you’re not sharing your code with users of older Xojo versions, dive in. It’s been worth it for me.
All that said, let’s try to get back on-topic. There are plenty of threads, blog posts, and more that talk about the issues people have with Xojo the software and Xojo the company. Let’s try to have at least one topic here that says what we like about Xojo.
2 Likes
Exactly …
We are talking about Kudos to Geoff here…
So as said … there are allot of Kudos for Geoff and his team otherwise I don’t spend my time on this forum and I’m not building my company assets with Xojo.
But the reaction from Geoff regarding web 1.0 to 2.0 conversion is something I can not believe.
For someone that talked about transitions from api 1.0 to 2.0 well that it was well thought trough no pressure to us to change… Just start in your old project with api 2.0 and your ok for next couple of years. Smooth transition … not smooth enough??? … Xojo has make some update so it’s even better!!! Yeahh Kudos!!!
All that effort for something that (for the most of us) still feels like a cosmetic change, instead a change of function… But more to let Xojo be a modern language… So to get more customers.
Regarding web 1.0 to 2.0 it is 180 degrees the opposite…
Close to nothing is done for a smooth conversion…
Reason for this web transition??? The fact that last 10 years close to nothing is updated on 1.0…
It looks to me that this reason should give Xojo more responsibility / motivation to come with a smooth transition??
So if the policy of Xojo is
and Xojo are sticking so hard on it (or hide behind it) … why did Xojo build and released web 2.0???
I know it doesn’t sound nice … but I feel (and allot of others) not to be heard…
How can I trust Xojo for the future … am I safe with Xojo or is this something I can expect within 10 years again with web 3.0 or is web 2.0 now something that wil be maintained ???
@Geoff be clear about this!!!
Kind regards,
from a Xojo lover (but lately a bit of rough love 
)
3 Likes
I understand your frustration, and I sympathize as a fellow user. I’m going through, or have gone through, everything you’re going through. There is a time and place for these discussions (and they have already been discussed ad nauseum), but derailing @Jon_Ogden’s thread isn’t really the best choice for that.
I understand what your saying… But the only reaction (where ever I put it on the forum) of Geoff is:
“Stick with 2019R3”,
“unless you do it nearly 100% perfectly, it’s better to not do it at all”
or “I never said that”
instead of giving me a decent explanation why thing are the way they are… And tell me what he is gonna do about this kind of situations now and in the future.
I have 3 pro licenses paying every year… How many do I need to get a decent answer ???
A thread about Kudos, Commitment and loyalty regarding Xojo … is IMHO also a place to ask…
Because of the fact that other threads on forum failed …
Kind regards
Erwin
2 Likes
I would encourage you to reach out to @Geoff_Perlman directly (many posts in this very thread say that he is open for discussion), or start yet another new thread with these questions and issues.