[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libgnustep-base split proposal
From: |
Helge Hess |
Subject: |
Re: libgnustep-base split proposal |
Date: |
Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:32:30 +0100 |
On 19. Feb 2006, at 08:35 Uhr, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
For me, distributed objects are one of the 'killer' features of the
base
library and the desire to use DO is perhaps the main reason I started
GNUstep development!
There do seem to be some people who just hate daemons, but even
if you hate daemons that's no reason to get rid of DO since you can
use it without them.
Well, we (SOPE/OGo) don't need DO but I don't care to have an NSPort
class linked into my binary either. Of course the binary should not
attempt to connect the daemons or setup the DO system unless I
actually use it.
I suppose this is already true for gstep-base.
However ... either configure-time or run-time options makes more
sense to me than a splitup.
Configure-time makes red lights go on, but otherwise I agree :-)
3. NSUserDefaults
As I already mentioned, this already copes with read-only database,
so it would
be easy to continue using it without any external files. Major
restucturing to
avoid using it therefore seems very counterproductive.
The only thing we have here in SOPE is that NSUserDefaults looks for
its database in $HOME instead of $GNUSTEP_USER_DIR if the latter is
not set.
5. NSBundle
I'm not sure what the perceived problem is here.
One feature I would like to see in NSBundle is the ability to load
a .so module w/o any resources since otherwise one needs to rebuild a
lot of API to load plain modules. But thats an additional feature,
not a bug :-)
Greets,
Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org