[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1
From: |
Manuel Guesdon |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1 |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:27:14 +0100 (CET) |
Hi David,
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 18:23:18 +0100 David Ayers <address@hidden> wrote:
>| Hello Manuel,
>|
>| I'm coming up with oddities of EOF 3.0 of WO4.5.1 and subtle differences
>| to GDL2 here and there:
>| - EONull compareAscending: nil returns NSOrderedAscending instead of
>| NSOrderedSame
I have no specific preference.
>| - EOModel does not implement isEqual:
And WO4.5 does ? So we'll to implement it...
>| And I haven't gotten far enough into .gswd/.wod-parsing to analyse the
>| GDL2 feature of NSDictionary valueForKeyPath and quoted key names. I
>| would like to propose the following default:
>| GSUseStrictWO451Compatiblity or GSUseStrictEOF451Compatiblity or
>| GSUseStrictEOF30?Compatiblity or what ever better name someone comes up
>| with.
I don't like too much this kind of things because if you use 2 frameworks or
libraries which set a different behaviour, the result is unknown and may
depend on some calling order.
I still don't see real problem with quoted key names but if you want to make
have
a parameter to control this, I'm OK :-)
>| Along with that comes a function (probably in EONSAndOns (and utility
>| class for thread safe access to global locks for GDL2))
>| BOOL
>| GSUseStrictWO451Compatiblity(NSString *key)
>| which caches the result from the default evaluation. I'm not intending
>| to update the cache. What ever the default is when it's read, that will
>| determine the behaviour of that process.
>|
>| When set to YES, it would:
>| - ignore the special handling of quoted keys in GDL2 KVC
>| - evaluate [[EONull null] compareAscending: nil] to NSOrderedAscending
>| (instead of NSOrderedSame as we do now.)
For this one, we could act as WO4.5 anyway.
>| - have [EOModel isEqual:] call super instead of a sane isEqual:
>| implementation, that I would like to have a look at later.
For this one, WO4.5 implementation should be OK, shouldn't it ?
Manuel
--
______________________________________________________________________
Manuel Guesdon - OXYMIUM <address@hidden>
14 rue Jean-Baptiste Clement - 93200 Saint-Denis - France
Tel: +33 1 4940 0999 - Fax: +33 1 4940 0998
- RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/12
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1,
Manuel Guesdon <=
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/12
- Re[2]: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Manuel Guesdon, 2003/03/13
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Giulio Cesare Solaroli, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Stéphane Corthésy, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Giulio Cesare Solaroli, 2003/03/26
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Giulio Cesare Solaroli, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, David Ayers, 2003/03/27
- Re: RFC: GDL2 differences to EOF / WO4.5.1, Adam Fedor, 2003/03/27