EugeneK

Lol, we had to do the same migration at our company, complained to Atlassian that cloud Jira is super slow compared to old hosted one, their response - our code is very big and complex you should get a faster computer. And our company is much bigger than Embarcadero. Jira is dominating the market and there is no easy migration to something else, there is no reason for them to do anything right now.

To be fair not much they can do, Atlassian blackmailing everyone to move to cloud based Jira, so they have to use inferior system as customer facing.

It is a long standing bug, see https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-25799 https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-31289, probably won't be fixed anytime soon.

I've added "Embarcadero Customers" to sharing, so hopefully this helps.

I've seen people going old-school and posting +1 comments 😀

Don't know what to do, new system is very primitive, I don't see any options on the page different from other issues that are available to different people.

Allow for recursive directory search for units https://embt.atlassian.net/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/RSS-940 These ones are in old system, so they are read only. I wonder should I copy these ones to new one? Add http status code constants to RTL https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-35731 Add const versions of generic anonymous methods declarations https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-33336 Decouple TService/TServiceApplication from VCL https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-41813 Add immutable records (similar to C# readonly structs) https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-34572

I understand this, I changed it. I'm talking about default value, good that I noticed it, if someone won't notice it can be unpleasant surprise if people rely on using specific OpenSSL version.

I think this should be commented out by default, I want to use OpenSSL version that I control. {$DEFINE OpenSSL_Resource_Files}

This should be updated with link to new quality portal https://qp.embarcadero.com/

BTW any reason why AnswerBodyTB rather than AnswerBodyTBytes or AnswerBodyBytes? makes it less readable and not consistent since it is AnswerBodyStream, not AnswerBodyTS

For me it is alternative for AnswerStream, so there is no need to create/dispose stream if there are already TBytes to send.

Hi Can we add THttpConnection.AnswerBytes with TBytes parameter same way as TSocket.SendTB

I'm not sure you understand my point. What I'm saying is that Embarcadero can theoretically hide ability to implement this interface manually and all existing code that uses anonymous methods in documented way will still work. Or they can change interface, say, rename Invoke to InvokeEx for some reason. So manually implementing this interface is a hack that can randomly stop working. Although I agree that probability is low that they will change it.

I'm not saying doing it without interface, I mean hiding this implementation detail from the users. I.e. not allowing to manually implement this interface in code. This won't break any documented uses of anonymous methods.