[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Gorm source reorganization

From: Nicola Pero
Subject: Re: Gorm source reorganization
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:05:05 +0100 (BST)

Thanks :-)

We will try to support frameworks on all platforms (well, at least I
will).  That might require quite nasty hacks and things, but should
generally be possible (haven't looked into the Windows case yet though,
but as OpenStep for Windows had it working with some hacks, I suppose we
can do the same).

If portability is an issue, I'd certainly recommend using libraries and
bundles only.  So yes, I generally agree with your suggestion of avoiding
frameworks in Gorm and all the core components (eg, gnustep-base,
gnustep-gui etc).

But frameworks are quite popular, so we're not going to drop them anytime
soon, and I'll try supporting as many platforms as possible.


> > Policy concerning Frameworks vs. Libraries: Basically if the code depends on
> > any resources to be present, it's going to be a framework, if not, it'll be 
> > a
> > library.
> That doesn't sound wise ... frameworks are explicitly 'not supported' under 
> windows (and possibly don't work an a variety of other platforms either), 
> and don't actually add any functionality that we don't already have in 
> bundles.  It makes more sense to use libraries where no resources are 
> rquired, and bundles where resources are needed.
> I know Nicola recently argued for a 'clean-up' of the structure of Gorm ... 
> but my reading of it was that he was suggesting making it more portable not 
> less portable.
> Back when framework support for gnu/linux was first introduced, Helge argued 
> for *not* introducing frameworks, on the grounds that they add no 
> functionality but supporting/maintaining them implies time-wasting 
> overtheads.  Now that they have been around for a while, I tend to agree 
> with him, and while I don't work on the make system and the framework code 
> myself, so I'm not about to do anything there, if there was a move to drop 
> framework support entirely, I certainly wouldn't argue against it, and I'd 
> defintely adviuse anyone attempting to write portable code to use the 
> simpler bundle mechanism.
> I don't know exactly what Nicola means by 'not supported' on windows ... it 
> might mean that he has no intention of ever trying to get frameworks to work 
> there, it might mean that he hasn't had the time.  From previous discussion 
> on the way frameworks are implemented elsewhere, I don't think anyone has 
> even figured out a way to implement them on windows without making multiple 
> copies of files cluttering things up (and introducing tremendous fragility), 
> or persuading compiler/linker people to build in support for them.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

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