[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: XML idea

From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: XML idea
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:41:48 +0000

On 7 Jan 2004, at 11:32, Helge Hess wrote:

On 07.01.2004, at 11:09, address@hidden wrote:
The extensions library is available for a looong time. Not sure why we need a new "PortabilityKit" library.

The problem with the extension library was that its copyright was not owned by the FSF, and I think FSF policy was that it should therefore not be distributed as part of GNUstep.

Of course. Did someone ever talk with Ovidiu (which probably holds the Copyright on most stuff) before rewriting everything I'm pretty sure it would have not been an issue for him to assign copyright.
Sigh ...

I believe the issue of getting the copyright assigned was looked into and there were idealogical reasons for the copyright holders not doing it.

For this reason, the base additions library was added to the base library, so extensions and portability issues could be addressed by code which (while clearly separated from the main base library source for clarity) would be available as part of the core distribution.

Which is an excellent decision - something like GSXML really does not belong into Foundation and was actually one of my major complains on gstep-base ;-).

But on the other side the question is whether Apple extensions always belong into Foundation and not into Foundation-additions? I think it is important that GNUstep makes a statement on this, so that I know what classes I can safely use between Cocoa, gstep-base and libFoundation.

If it's in additions, it's also in base ... since a build of the base library incorporates additions. If it's in additions, you should be able to use it in MacOS-X either natively or by using the additions library.

I really don't think you can produce a definitive statement on new MacOS-X features ... they keep changing. 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'.
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.

reply via email to

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