[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: XML idea

From: Helge Hess
Subject: Re: XML idea
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:56:34 +0100

On Jan 7, 2004, at 2:41 PM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
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.

I think "believe" can be safely translated with "no". Anyway - no need to elaborate on this ;-)

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.

I cannot follow you on that. If I do link against -lgstep-base, do I get the additions or not?

If it's in additions, you should be able to use it in MacOS-X either natively or by using the additions library.

I'm only interested in things which are available on MacOS-X natively.

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

So there should be a procedure on how to deal with that. Eg I think there is some agreement that AppleScript things are not being added to gstep-base. Probably we need a supported/optional/unsupported/not-yet-implemented list.

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'.

Yes, I understand. The point is that it is not transparent to the gstep-base user what one is allowed to use in cross-platform code and what not.

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.

This just doesn't make sense to me. If it isn't supported, I can't use it. If it requires additional libraries, I probably won't use it.

OpenGroupware.org => http://www.opengroupware.org/

reply via email to

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