[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML idea
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: XML idea |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2004 15:23:29 +0000 |
On 7 Jan 2004, at 13:56, Helge Hess wrote:
If it's in additions, it's also in base ... since a build of the base
library incorporates additions.
I cannot follow you on that. If I do link against -lgstep-base, do I
get the additions or not?
You do.
If it's in additions, you should be able to use it in MacOS-X either
natively or by using the additions library.
I'm only interested in things which are available on MacOS-X natively.
I really don't think you can produce a definitive statement on new
MacOS-X features ... they keep changing.
So there should be a procedure on how to deal with that. Eg I think
there is some agreement that AppleScript things are not being added to
gstep-base. Probably we need a
supported/optional/unsupported/not-yet-implemented list.
Well, we don''t have an 'unsupported' category now... I was just
suggesting what we *might* do in future.
As far as the rest goes ... surely the documentation should serve
Some we might want to incorporate directly into the base library
(probably most changes to existing classes and new classes we think
are really well designed), others we might put in the additions
library for compatibility but not treat as 'core'.
Yes, I understand. The point is that it is not transparent to the
gstep-base user what one is allowed to use in cross-platform code and
what not.
It's marked in the header files and in the documentation for each
class/category ... I think the base library is pretty accurate on that
at least, though the gui is probably not (the mechanism is there, but
people need to check that the documentation is correct and fix as
necessary).
In other words, I think that if/when we get contributions of MacOS-X
classes we don't particularly like, we could put them in the
additions library, and document them as unsupported or semi-supported
... meaning that the core developers would give low priority to their
support.
This just doesn't make sense to me. If it isn't supported, I can't use
it. If it requires additional libraries, I probably won't use it.
Let's not call it 'unsupported' then :-)
Seriously ... this is free software ... you support the stuff you want
yourself. I'm just making the point that realistically there are some
parts of the codebase that will get higher priority from most
developers than others.
- Re: XML idea, (continued)
- Re: XML idea, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Pete French, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Jason Clouse, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, richard, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: XML idea, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Marcel Weiher, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Pete French, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Adam Fedor, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Jason Clouse, 2004/01/07