Leaderboard

That's not quite true. Jira Server is EOL in february this year but there's still Jira Data Center which is also on-prem (and extremely expensive). So the question is what "limited" means. Jira is licensed per-user and I'm guessing that they're not going to buy a license for each of their Delphi users. Instead they might be going with Jira Cloud internally and Jira Service Management (JSM, formerly Service Desk) externally. JSM is licensed per agent (internal user) with unlimited externals users (called "external customer" in JSM). I trialed JSM many years ago for external support but back then it was still licensed per external user and didn't really work that well, compared to something like ZenDesk. As far as I know JSM does not allow one external user to see the issues raised by other external users. I.e. it's a support system; There's no interaction between external users. So if JSM is the solution they are going for I don't see it as an improvement. As I customer I don't really care about what goes on behind the curtain. From my POW it seemed to work fine but I guess you point was that it only seemed that way. I wish I could have your admirable optimism.

Why is it definitely a good thing? The current system seems to work fine. I can understand why they would want to migrate away from their old, unsupported Jira server but without knowing what they are going to replace it with it's hard to say if it will be an improvement. Don't count on it. The last time they switched system all the existing data were left behind and lost.

You might already have seen it: When you go to https://quality.embarcadero.com/ there is a notice at the top saying: So be prepared (presumably already today) for not being able to file new reports or edit/comment on existing ones. Searching and reading should be possible. While this will most certainly lead to complaints, it is definitely a good thing and long awaited change.

Maybe this will help you: procedure TForm1.btnClick(Sender: TObject); begin // if not (Sender is not TImage) then Exit; or if Sender is TImage then begin var Im := TImage(Sender); case Im.tag of 1: begin end; 2: beep; // we clicked on IM_2, so produce a audible tone 3: begin end; end; end; end;

Delphi is strongly typed language you cannot modify the signature of an event. In order to find out which button was clicked you should the sender parameter of onClick: procedure TForm1.btnClick(Sender: TObject); var c : TComponent; begin if Sender is TButton then // <--- the name of the class of the button begin c:=Self.FindComponent('IM_'+TButton(Sender).Tag.ToString) ; ........ You should never use Form1 inside a method of the TForm1 that's a bad design you're locking the implementation to that one reference instead you can write Self.FindCompoent or leave out self and write FindComponent. Please try not to use With it's an evil language contruct that has no place in modern code.

OK I have a work around for this issue. It assumes that users have downloaded the GoogleTest library from getit using RAD Studio (or C++ Builder) 11. Details are at this blog: https://wordpress.com/post/cigolblog.wordpress.com/716

On a side note, you should not be passing an Owner to your thread. You are creating the TPing object inside your worker thread, so don't assign a component from the main thread as its Owner. Set the Owner to nil instead, and then Free() the object when you are done using it.

I am sure that everyone here has everything in duplicate, so when something dies they can replace it in an instance with minimal interruptions, especially if it dies over the weekend during the huge cold spell. Stuff happens, no matter how small or big the company is. Do I need to remind you that on one instance Facebook folks had to literally break into their server room because they got locked out of it. I am not going to defend the lack of official communication, this is something that needs to change, but this is also not something that people on lower hierarchy levels (meaning the ones that blog and communicate with us) can do on their own.

Although the real problem is the language design that makes this order affect the meaning of the program.

Sorting units by name is dangerous. There are some units that need to be added at the end of the list, if they overwrite some behavior's of objects and functions of other units above in the list. There are other units that need to be placed on top of the list if they do some special initialization that needs to be done in the app as soon as possible, before any other parts of the app start to initialize.

I forgot to mention, in original code, merely declaring num as Integer gives 50% increase in the performance.