Re: XML idea

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

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.