Re: import vs include Re: Porting autogsdoc to OSX

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On Wednesday, February 27, 2002, at 09:21 AM, Helge Hess wrote:
> BTW: it is not required by the API of Foundation that HTTP URLs are 
> supported ! This capability can easily be added by another library.

It's true that the API doesn't actually specify that any particular URL 
schemes be implemented,
but in fact MacOS-X *does* implement this stuff, and the class is rather 
useless otherwise.

> > 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.
>
> No, MacOSX compatibility is absolutely required, I agree. What I fear 
> (and this already has happened) is that internal API besides Foundation 
> (as specified by MacOSX API) is exported.
> I see a huge potential in gstep-base for becoming bloated. In my 
> opinion it should be Foundation, nothing more.

Well, bloat is a danger ... we are tracking MacOS-X and I think their 
Foundation is perhaps becoming bloated.
I don't see any reason for all the apple scripting code being in 
Foundation, and we haven't added that yet
(though I guess we might).

I know you have been told this before ... but the GNUstep API is clearly 
marked as such and readily disabled
with a simple compile time flag, so there is no portability problem 
there (for people who want to write
portable code).  I think I got tyhe impression in the past that this is 
not enough for you, and you wish to
force people to write portable code whether they want to or not.

We are also moving towards making some stuff (like XML parsing) 
available as a separate library, to make
it easier to take advantage of GNUstep specific stuff on MacOS-X where 
people want to - but I don't see
that as high priority.

> > 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.
>
> Well, you are wrong here. libFoundation currently lacks non of the 
> features you are talking about !

OK. I haven't looked at it for a while, but in that case, not having 
them would break compatibility
with libFoundation too.

> But it has a minimalistic approach in supporting the MacOSX Foundation, 
> eg XML plists and HTTP URLs are added in user-level libraries, not in 
> the core itself, since this is *NOT* required at all by the MacOSX 
> Foundation API.

Ah ... but we are trying to be compatible, not just use the same API.  
As much as possible we want
to avoid having to locate and link additional frameworks to do what on 
MacOS is all in one.
Not that there is anything particularly hard about linking in extra 
libraries, but why confuse
developers by providing frameworks which have the same API but different 
functionality?

> > To the best of my knowledge there has never been portability between 
> > foundations -
>
> gstep-gui has run on NeXTstep Foundation, libFoundation and gstep-base.

Please!!! That does not support your assertion about portability, and 
does not answer my objections.
To say that gstep-gui has run on NeXTstep and libFoundation is 
misleading in the extreme, since you
must be talking about either a very old version or a very cut down 
version.

Yes, there is a core of functionality which is portable between all 
foundations, but no addition of
extra features is likely to effect that.  So in the sense in which you 
used the term originally
(ie wanting to avoid extra features so that all features would be 
available in all foundations),
I repeat that there has never been any such thing.

Actually, I'm beginning to get a sense of deja-vu ... hasn't this been 
said on this list before?