Re: Apple scripting extensions (Was: Re: kind of unit testing framework for StepTalk)

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 29 Apr 2004, at 16:26, Quentin Mathé wrote:

> Le 27 avr. 04, à 13:12, Helge Hess a écrit :
>
> > On Apr 20, 2004, at 10:56 PM, Stefan Urbanek wrote:
> >
> > > On 2004-04-20 12:02:04 +0200 Helge Hess 
> > > <helge.hess@opengroupware.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Stefan,
> > > > did you ever consider using the Foundation scripting extensions 
> > > > done by Apple for StepTalk?
> > > Yes, I have thought about that... however, GNUstep does not provide 
> > > them at the moment.
> >
> > I think it is a good approach to implement them in StepTalk (or some 
> > other outside framework) first and if done, move them to base (if 
> > people agree to that).
>
> Personally, I would prefer to not have them included in base because 
> they rely too heavily on the Apple Event terminology which is rather 
> cryptic in my opinion.
> I think a better solution with a more simple and generic terminology 
> can be created (eventually included in base) and derivated to 
> implement compatibility with Cocoa scripting architecture.

I'm a pragmatist ... I'd accept an implementation either way ... if 
whoever is going to write the code wants to do it as a better 
implementation with a MacOS-X compatibility, that's good, if they just 
want to do a MacOS-X clone, that's ok too (but if people want to do 
both, I'd probably prefer the more powerful solution).

In terms of location ... for consistency with apple foundation, this 
should be part of the base library ... but I think it *is* rather a 
bloated clutter of the foundation.  I would like to see the source and 
headers of scripting classes in a subdirectory separated from the main 
source/headers, in the same sort of way that the GNUstep specific 
additions are kept in the 'Additions' subdirectory.