Re: Frameworks integration

[Helge Hess]

On 29.02.2004, at 01:53, NeXT wrote:
> Hmm, I think I did make some mistake. I think SOPE cannot be used with 
> GDL2, because it contains EOControl.

Well, so do not compile the EOControl coming with SOPE but just use 
GDL2 instead ;-)

Granted, there might be some minor issues since we did not try SOPE 
with GDL2 yet, but after all SOPE/EOControl should be a subset of 
GDL2/EOControl in case the GDL2 one is really compatible with EOF 4.

> And in case of WO compatibility, yes, I cannot find any difference 
> between SOPE and GNUstepWeb. (Yes, my testing application is very 
> simple) And without apple's tool(which I run on windows) SOPE's 
> template definition is more easy with text editor than original WO 
> template definition.

Yes. Actually NGObjWeb did support <WEBOBJECT> tags and it would be 
rather trivial to "re-add" the support for them. But as you say, the # 
syntax is way easier to write than the WEBOBJECT one which is only 
interesting if you want to use rapid-turnaround in SOPE:X (in the case 
of existing .wo wrappers you can use a trivial SED script to move the 
<WEBOBJECT> syntax to <#>).

best regards,
  Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org