[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX |
Date: |
Wed, 27 Feb 2002 05:49:10 +0000 |
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 10:43 PM, Helge Hess wrote:
I'm also amazed that MIME and XML functionality is put into gstep-base.
Why does a *Foundation* library require XML and MIME functionality ???
Hm. Gstep-base is IMHO radically violating the one major feature of
OpenStep, portability between Foundations. That way you will never
reach MacOSX developers ...
I guess you must have missed it ... NSURL supports http stuff (mime type
headers) and suchlike,
and the new property list format is XML, and bth NSURL and property
lists are part of MacOS-X
Foundation.
So ... far from breaking portability, inclusion of this functionality is
critical for ensuring
portability with MacOS-X (and we're looking at making this stuff readily
usable from MacOS-X
apps as well as just usable internally by the base lbrary). Ok, it's
not portable with the
(effectively dead) OpenStep spec.
Sure, these are features that the old OPENSTEP and libFoundation
Foundations lack, but I think
ensuring portability to/from MacOS-X is the first portability priority.
Also, OpenStep was never designed for 'portability between
foundations' ... it was designed
for 'portability between platforms'. In other words, the idea was to
let NeXT and Sun deploy
on different hardware platforms and operating systems.
To the best of my knowledge there has never been portability between
foundations -
OPENSTEP (NeXT) and OPENSTEP(Sun) were essentially the same codebase,
not different foundations.
libFoundation has never tried to fully implement the OpenStep spec, and
has added some
OPENSTEP/MacOS stuff and a little stuff of its own.
GNUstep has pretty fully implemented OpenStep and MacOS-X, but always
added a lot of
its own stuff.
MacOS-X has dropped some OpenStep stuff, and added lots of its own stuff.
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, (continued)
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Helge Hess, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Nicola Pero, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Pete French, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Marcus Müller, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Nicola Pero, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Helge Hess, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Pascal Bourguignon, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Nicola Pero, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Marcus Müller, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Helge Hess, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Peter Cooper, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Pascal Bourguignon, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Dirk Theisen, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Helge Hess, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/27
- Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX, Pascal Bourguignon, 2002/02/27