[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Frameworks integration

From: NeXT
Subject: Re: Frameworks integration
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:53:34 +0900

Hmm, I think I did make some mistake. I think SOPE cannot be used with GDL2, because it contains EOControl. 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.

I hope I did not make another misunderstandind here :-)

On 2004-02-29 06:23:52 +0900 Helge Hess <address@hidden> wrote:

On 28.02.2004, at 06:21, S.J.Chun wrote:
At least, GNUstepWeb and SOPE has each merits: GNUstepWeb is much more compatible with WebObjects in terms of EOF, and SOPE is known for its more mature state. :-)

No, not really.

First: EOF is a completely separate issue, of course you could also use GDL2 with SOPE and this isn't part of gnustep-web.

Second: I think NGObjWeb is more compatible with WebObjects than gnustep-web (eg concerning template parsing, though we have stripped out some stuff for OGo [but could put back things like "WEBOBJECT" instead of "#" or .woo files in case someone actually cares <I guess not>]).

I'm using and testing both of them, and it's very interesting...

Well, if you find anything where SOPE is not compatible with WO (again: let alone EOF, completely different framework), let me know. We could make a list on that and explain ;-)

PS: Absolutely no offense intended wrt gnustep-web. Its just that NGObjWeb should provide everything it does yet is several years more mature and also provides much in addition. So it might make sense to focus efforts on this area, but if there is no interest, I'm fine as well ;-) Of course its really annoying to have duplicate development.


reply via email to

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