[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject
From: |
Helge Hess |
Subject: |
Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:15:27 +0100 |
On Mar 2, 2004, at 3:43 PM, NeXT wrote:
I've not perform extensive testing but as far as I know, current state
of SOPE does work well. even with Korean(with UTF8 encoding, I'm not
tested with EUC-KR encoding, and UTF-8 is the right way I think).
Really? Great to here :-)
KVC is not supported in SOPE as you said(actually GNUstep base does
have this feature, and GSWeb does make use of this), so porting(or
just mere copying) of existing application code needs some
works(creating accessors and setters).
OK, "ivar KVC" is not supported, only method KVC. So we should add
that, seems to be important.
Currently WOKeyPathAssociation has an optimized and caching version of
KVC which is much faster than the generic KVC API (eg avoids the
creation of intermediate number objects when you bind an "int" to an
"int").
It should be trivial to use the KVC implementation provided by
gstep-base by doing such a category (probably mirrors what gstep-web is
doing):
---snip---
@implementation WOKeyPathAssociation(UseFoundationKVC)
- (void)setValue:(id)_value inComponent:(WOComponent *)_component {
[_component takeValue:_value forKeyPath:self->keyPath];
}
- (id)valueInComponent:(WOComponent *)_component {
return [_component valueForKeyPath:self->keyPath];
}
...
- (int)intValueInComponent:(WOComponent *)_component {
return [[self valueInComponent:_component] intValue];
}
... etc
@end
---snap---
Hm. I might add this as an compatibility option to SOPE, no big deal,
stay tuned ;-)
It will be a significantly slower, but is going to provide all the KVC
features available in gstep-base.
regards,
Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/03/01
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Martin Häcker, 2004/03/01
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/01
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, NeXT, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, NeXT, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, NeXT, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject,
Helge Hess <=
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, NeXT, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, David Ayers, 2004/03/04
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/08
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, David Ayers, 2004/03/08
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, NeXT, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/03
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, NeXT, 2004/03/02
- Re: [GSWHackers] Future of GnusStep WebObject, Helge Hess, 2004/03/03