Well, I for one am a bit miffed that this hasn't been sorted out. I understand both camps problems but as a developer am a bit annoyed that, having forked out for, and developed software for the C/C++ toolkit from Castle they are now making it difficult to redistribute programs written using it, never mind the fact that I've been penalised for being an early adopter with the subscription scheme! I shall now ponder the situation while I decide whether to, a) re-code to use GCC, b) not bother with it at all and do something more profitable.
Licencing can be a real pain in the backside but this kind of protectionism profits nobody in the end. BOTH parties need to sort this out properly, or more sensibly merge. This kind of "competition" in a small market is nothing short of suicidal.
To Joty: Yes, I'm looking at all those too...however at the lower level I know where the contents are going to go on disc and can put in some improvements in terms of grouping and ordering (writing multiple blocks in order in one go) i.e. small files in a directory. I am hoping to extend out to fileswitch caching at a later date and allow it to be configured either way. I understand the pros and cons of both ways of doing it. I went for the filecore route as that was what I wanted to do at the time. However I now realise just how slooooow filecore can be sometimes so may well revise.
To chocky: The cache is fixed size at present for testing, but I'm hoping to be able to use all (or a percentage of) free memory and resize as necessary...this may or may not be practical though. It'll mean quite a bit of poking around with dynamic areas.
I'll be collecting all the replies up and will try and send out the test suite by the end of next weekend