Re: NSKeyedArchiver implementation...

[Fred Kiefer]

Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> My issue is that we will not only need to read, but we will also need to WRITE
> the same format.  So we *will* need to keep up with IB and Cocoa changes, which
> can only be done by those of us who have Cocoa machines.  This is particularly
> a problem when it comes to .gorm archives (which are just object archives like
> any other).  There are many internal classes which are vastly different and it
> will be expected that if keyed archiving can read/write Apple archives that we
> will also be able to read/write Apple .nib files (since they are also simply
> archives). 
>
> There are some things that have been done in GNUstep, particularly with
> templates, which are superior to how Apple/NeXT implemented it on
> MOSX/OPENSTEP.   I hesitant to reverse engineer this piece on MOSX, and others,
> and change how we work and possibly degrade how we work simply so that we can
> be compatible.

I understand the problem with writing Apple compatible NIB files. But 
perhaps we should just not put this at the top of the priority list? 
Mine looks like this:

1) read Apple object archives
2) read Apple NIB files
3) write Apple object archives
4) write key code GNUstep GORM files
5) write Apple NIB files

That is, first get all the normal classes to be read in. Than the 
special NIB classes from Apple. Later we may start to support writing 
object archives and than key encode our own GORM classes (and of course 
add reading for them as well). Last we may try to be able to write NIB 
files that could be read in on a Cocoa system.
If we ever get to step 4, but not to 5, we could simple ship a small set 
of GORM classes in source code to be used on Cocoa systems.

Fred