[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NSPathUtilities Patch - 5 - NSPathUtilities.m

From: Kazunobu Kuriyama
Subject: Re: NSPathUtilities Patch - 5 - NSPathUtilities.m
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:20:09 +0900
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; ja-JP; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1

Sheldon Gill wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:56, Kazunobu Kuriyama wrote:

Sheldon Gill wrote:
IIRC, some people were not in favor of setting
the fixed path /etc/GNUstep/GNUstep.conf. Did you reached some
agreement with

The definition of the fixed path is to be a compile time configuration option.

NSPathUtilities.m *is* not written so. (Your code is not arranged so that
config.h or can overwrite it; it's hard coded, anyway.)

Provision for "Platform Support" which causes
NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains() to return additional paths for
different platforms. This makes it easier to find applications or other

If the order of search paths has been "corrected", that is likely to break
other places in both GNUstep and third-parties' applications, where that
function is called. Perhaps, that is a right thing to do. Nonetheless, I
strongly feel you should state this fact more loudly and consult with those
who are in charge of version control on making a transition period for
that. No one is pleased with this sort of change without any warning.

How is it likely to break other places? All "Platform Support" does is add
additional paths at the end of the array. It doesn't change things in a
damaging way. Things that call it get a couple of additional places to search
in for whatever they're looking for and will only go looking there if it
hasn't already been found. Nothing breaks.

For instance, look at the case where -reverseObjectEnumerator is used.  Can
you still guarantee nothing is broken?

The order of search paths of GNUstep is currently incorrect. There is a bug
which is noted in the source.

I'd like to make sure of this: Did you fix it or leave it as is?

Why didn't you pay any attention to backwards compatibility at all?

If I didn't pay any attention to backwards compatibility, why did I bring up
the issue?

I believe I've payed considerable consideration to backwards compatibility.
Only where there are reasonable advantages have made changes which effect
compatibility. These proposed changes require only a recompile. No
modifications need to be made to application source at all.

Only a recompile... I feel you need to explain why other people have to spend their time for your cause. It's all about the issue on backwards compatibility! (Or do I use the term "backwards compatiblity" differently from the meaning in
your mind?)

If the enumeration order isn't changed then even recompiling isn't needed. I've put forward the change now because there are other changes elsewhere in
GNUstep which are likely to require it anyway.

Could you think about the incremental approach that some people already
suggested you?

- Kazunobu Kuriyama

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]