[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 15:23:29 +0000

On 7 Jan 2004, at 13:56, Helge Hess wrote:
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?
You do.

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.

Well, we don''t have an 'unsupported' category now... I was just suggesting what we *might* do in future.
As far as the rest goes ... surely the documentation should serve

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.

It's marked in the header files and in the documentation for each class/category ... I think the base library is pretty accurate on that at least, though the gui is probably not (the mechanism is there, but people need to check that the documentation is correct and fix as necessary).

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.

Let's not call it 'unsupported' then :-)

Seriously ... this is free software ... you support the stuff you want yourself. I'm just making the point that realistically there are some parts of the codebase that will get higher priority from most developers than others.

reply via email to

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