[Lazarus] TreeView with columns

[Adem]

  On 2010-07-15 06:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara said:
>
> (I seem to have failed to receive Adem's msg, so I might reply to him sometimes)
After being told off being off topic, I decided not to bother this list 
again; but even though my initial message on this subject was a private 
email, which --through nobody's fault-- wound up being replied to the 
list, hence I am replying to the list. Sorry.
>> Not that i think this is a big issue but, AFAIK, mixing licenses are not
>> so straightforward even if is toward a more liberal.
> MPL is said to be GPL incompatible. VST is also LGPL (but without exception)
I don't agree with that. But, I have no intention of starting an endless 
discussion on it either.
All I'd be suggesting, at this point, is to ask Mike. I doubt if he 
would refuse the exception --whyever it is necessary, I have no idea.
>> Agree. Just two points:
> Creating classes is significantly more expensive than records, which can be
> mass cheaply allocated, cheaply initialized and their allocations are more
> tightly packed.
That being so, IIRC, speed difference wasn't that significant when I did 
refactor VT to use pure objects.

Similarly, again IIRC, memory impact wasn't significan either --nodes 
were already large enough.

But, there are significant advantages --at least AFAIC: The first and 
most important one is the unintuitive nature of VT, as far as node 
addition etc. are concerned.

Secondly, deriving new node classes were major pain: You had to know and 
juggle far too many balls in the air. I am not saying it wasn't doable 
(even I have done a few myself), but for a casual developer VT is hell 
--IMO-- to use for different purposes.
> It would make it more troublesome for large scale users.  (and yes, such
> things are still noticable)
True.

For that, I would suggest keeping the classic version around both for 
speed/memory reasons and legacy code, but rename the new version 
something else so that they can both coexist in the same IDE.
>
>> -This is a feature to be implemented in version 5x:
>> http://code.google.com/p/virtual-treeview/issues/detail?id=3 . The LCL
>> port will take advantage as soon is implemented (and released) there.
> I don't read that there? Sb suggests it, and half shoot it down, half not?
AFAIT, they are at the initial stages of discussions --but, I haven't 
read any more than that link either.

Cheers,

Adem