Re: Minimalist GNUstep possible?

[David Chisnall]

In case you missed it in the flurry of responses to the questions that you 
didn't ask, Nicola answered the one that you actually did ask:

If you configure GNUstep Make with the FHS mode, it will use the FHS layout.  

For Windows, the .app bundle actually does make sense, although they don't call 
it a .app bundle, they call it a subdirectory of C:\Program Files, but the 
concept is essentially the same.  Programs install their binary, resources, and 
all dependencies inside this directory, just as they do in a .app directory on 
OS X.  The only difference is that you launch the program by clicking on a 
shortcut to the .exe from the start menu or desktop, rather than by clicking on 
the directory.

David

On 19 Jun 2010, at 16:18, Jonathan Wolf wrote:

> Hello Riccardo,
> 
> I apologize if any of my comments were taken in a bad manner - I fully
> admit to some ignorance to the way GNUstep works, and have found the
> conversations on the dev list very insightful and helpful. =)
> 
>> What point do you have in an .app "bundle" if you do not have the GUI app
>> itself and if you want GNUstep to be a ".so"?
> 
> The idea is to try and "mimic" the native layout of each target
> platform (Windows, Linux, and Mac) while maintaining the ObjC runtime.
> App bundles will be appropriate for Mac, where as stand alone
> executables (and any relevant data) would be appropriate for Win/Nix.
> The idea is to try and keep the nature of the GNUstep layout (with the
> various folder hierarchy) restricted as much as possible. I know I
> will probably get some fire for this, but again, the idea is to use
> ObjC for all three systems and use GNUstep for the Windows and Linux
> side (while keeping with Apple's stuff on the Mac side).
> 
>> I think you underestimate the portability and compactness of "Foundation"
>> which is what you are looking for.
> 
> Oh not at all - I wasn't looking for compactness in terms of program
> size, but rather number of dependencies and number of file system
> hierarchy modifications.
> 
> For instance, when on Mac, one has a user Library folder and program
> specific Documents folder and the likes. While that is great for Mac,
> this is not the way my team would like to mimic the hierarchy in a
> Linux or Windows environment (keeping to a /usr/local/share in nix, or
> my documents in win - just for instance). The data files relevant to
> storing user preferences, etc., will still be maintained in an XML,
> but that will be (on Win/Nix) local to the program directory. This is
> more just an issue of trying to, again, mimic a native application to
> said system, keeping the "mess" to an absolute minimal, and looking
> like a native built application (with only Mac having the App bundle).
> 
> 
> Sorry if that's not the best way of explaining it or if that's not how
> GNUstep was set up to "work". :p
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, thanks again for the excellent discussion.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Riccardo Mottola <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the reply David,
>>> 
>>> I apologize for my lack of correct terminology - I did mean just
>>> Foundation (as in, NSObject, NSDate, etc.) and .app bundles.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> What point do you have in an .app "bundle" if you do not have the GUI app
>> itself and if you want GNUstep to be a ".so"?
>>> 
>>> The idea that this is sparked off from is basically how one would take
>>> ObjC, in a minimalist form, and port it over to another environment -
>>> equally the same issue if you were to take it from iPhone to desktop
>>> (say Windows/MinGW) or, probably another avenue to be explored next
>>> year, iPhone to Android (if estimates of the Android market overtaking
>>> iPhone stay true).
>>> 
>> 
>> I think you underestimate the portability and compactness of "Foundation"
>> which is what you are looking for.
>> 
>> Foundation is compact, complete and reliable. It runs on a host of
>> architectures and little resources. I have it working on a 68040 33MHz
>> Motorola... And it runs very well on a MIPS netbook.
>> 
>> The only thing is that its latest incarnation needs fairly modern thread
>> stuff, I could use the older release on a 25Mhz Sparcstation with 32MB of
>> ram easily! THat means the iPhone or iPad have far more resources!
>>> 
>>> Having done years of C++, I've developed quite a hatred for all things
>>> C++ in nature, and having gone from a strong C++ background to an ObjC
>>> background, I have been absolutely amazed that it hasn't gotten more
>>> wide reception. Either rate, I think one of the issues was that ObjC
>>> was so intertwined to Apple, and GNUstep aims to break that - and this
>>> is a very good thing imho.
>>> 
>> 
>> I can understand your hate for C++. It is a shame it is so widespread.
>>> 
>>> So I am trying to leverage the Foundation runtime best I can, but in a
>>> minimalist form as possible - so aiming at a one file .so/.dll is the
>>> goal really. I think that my original question may be a bit off since
>>> what I am really interested in trying to make happen is so that going
>>> through a GORM/GNUmake makefile like system (producing an .app
>>> bundle), while interesting, is not necessarily the avenue wanting to
>>> be took - mainly just pushing out a libobjc.so/.dll and
>>> libnsfoundation.so/.dll would be the most ideal route.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Play with "base", which contains foundation, it is most probably more than
>> enough. You can also playing with its installation domains, like FHS. At the
>> end, a Framework is really a library with a bunch of headers.
>> 
>> Riccardo
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev


-- Sent from my brain