[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: corebase runloop integration
From: |
Luboš Doležel |
Subject: |
Re: corebase runloop integration |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Feb 2014 22:54:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 |
On 02/03/2014 10:10 PM, Stefan Bidi wrote:
> I really appreciate the work you're doing on corebase. I really haven't
> had any time to do anything recently, but I have been keeping up with
> your changes.
>
> Personally, what I would like to see is an agglomeration of all the
> related projects. For example, why can't the corenetwork library be
> brought into corebase? No reason why these 2 libraries are split.
The project's directory had already been created when I started working
on it. But possibly only because they're separate on OS X.
> To answer your question, I think that sounds fine, but why not just
> override NSRunLoop's designated initializer and just return NSCFRunLoop
> (or whatever you want to call it)? Wouldn't that be easier than
> checking for a symbol? Or am I missing something?
Well... method swizzling is considered "ugly" and overriding via
categories is "not guaranteed to work". At least that's what I've heard
when I examined such possibilities for other stuff.
--
Luboš Doležel
- corebase runloop integration, Luboš Doležel, 2014/02/03
- corebase runloop integration, Ivan Vučica, 2014/02/03
- Re: corebase runloop integration, Stefan Bidi, 2014/02/03
- Re: corebase runloop integration,
Luboš Doležel <=
- Re: corebase runloop integration, Luboš Doležel, 2014/02/03
- Re: corebase runloop integration, David Chisnall, 2014/02/04
- Re: corebase runloop integration, Luboš Doležel, 2014/02/04
- Re: corebase runloop integration, Niels Grewe, 2014/02/04
- Re: corebase runloop integration, Luboš Doležel, 2014/02/04
- Re: corebase runloop integration, Owen Shepherd, 2014/02/04
- Re: corebase runloop integration, Luboš Doležel, 2014/02/04