[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: .gorm vs .gmodel
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: .gorm vs .gmodel |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:26:20 +0000 |
On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 10:02 AM, Stephen Brandon wrote:
Hi,
sorry if this is a stupid question, but I am (still) puzzled about the
difference between .gorm and .gmodel files.
Let's say I use nib2gmodel to convert some nibs to gmodels for an app
or two.
If these gmodels sit in the same directory as the nibs, then if I
compile on
GNUstep instead of MacOSX, will the gmodel files get automatically
picked up
and used instead of the nibs?
Think so ... I'd have to check ... certainly that should be the case.
And with gorm files, does the same thing apply? If they sit, for
example, in
English.lproj, do they get picked up in the same way as nibs?
Yes. I *think* the preference is to use a .gorm first and a .gmodel if no
.gorm file exists.
So what I am asking is if GNUstep is able to natively use gorm and
gmodel
files as nib replacements.
Yes.
And if that's the case, are the gorm and gmodel files actually of
identical
format?
No.
A .gorm is like a .nib ... an archive of objects using the standard
NSCoder
stuff - storing all relevent ivars such that objects can be reproduced
exactly. The .gmodel format tries to abstract out the logical
characteristics
of objects in a system independant way. It has to have additional
encoding/decoding methods written for each class. It tries to achieve a
degree of portability between GNUstep and OPENSTEP/MacOS-X
Lastly, is it possible in any way to open gmodels in Gorm.app for
editing?
Not until someone writes one. It *should* be reasonable to have Gorm
read/write
gmodels - I don't see any difficulty in it (but I'm not very familiar
with the
gmodel format) - it might involve a loss of information in comparison
with
.gorm files, but I'm sure that the .gmodel could be extended to deal
with that.