[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding
From: |
Manuel Guesdon |
Subject: |
Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:55:39 +0100 (CET) |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 19:27:10 +0100 Helge Hess <address@hidden> wrote:
>| On Sonntag, Februar 24, 2002, at 06:38 Uhr, Manuel Guesdon wrote:
>| > In Apple stuff, KVC are in EOF which is, AFAIK, only delivered as a
>| > part of WebObjects.
>|
>| No. KVC is part of Apple Foundation for quite some time now. So no need
>| to link GDL just for KVC ...
>| > Putting KVC stuff in EOF force people to link with gdl2 just for KVC.
>|
>| KVC belongs into Foundation now (like NSClassDescription and NSNull)
You're right, I've finally found it in
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Java/Protocols/NSKeyValueCoding.html
>| > Putting KVC stuff in base means that people wanted to use gsweb and
>| > gdl2 with other foundations libraries can't (or need
>| > to re-implement KVC)
>|
>| This isn't an issue any more. We should place a KVC implementation in
>| FoundationExt if we want to support deprecated OS's like OPENSTEP.
>| Indeed because KVC is part of Foundation it's much easier now, since you
>| don't need to maintain runtime specific code in GDL :-)
I agree :-) on the last sentence but in this case, why putting "base KVC" in
FoundationExt an not base ?
>| > Putting KVC stuff in a distinct library (in which we could also put
>| > NSString GNUstep additions and so on) allow this.
>|
>| We already have this library, FoundationExt/extensions, and with GNUstep
>| back in 1998-something it was well maintained, because Ovidiu did port
>| gstep-gui to several different Foundations. Personally I find it very
>| unfortunate that the parts of GNUstep became so tightly coupled.
Using FoundationExt/extensions is OK for me.
>| I think at FOSDEM we discussed the stuff shortly. If I understood
>| Richard correct, he would like to create a stripped down gstep-base on
>| other platforms, which IMHO is a nice idea. That is, if you have a
>| library combo other than *-gnu-*, gstep-base is compiled without
>| NSArray, NSString, etc, but only the GNUstep additions. You still link
>| with gstep-base, but get no clashes with libFoundation,
>| Foundation.framework or whatever :-)
Nice idea too but won't it be harder than to move GNUstep additions into
FoundationExt (I don't know, just a question
:-) ?
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
- Re: EOKeyValueCoding, Manuel Guesdon, 2002/02/24
- Re: EOKeyValueCoding, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/24
- Re[2]: EOKeyValueCoding, Manuel Guesdon, 2002/02/24
- Re: Re[2]: EOKeyValueCoding, Helge Hess, 2002/02/24
- Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding,
Manuel Guesdon <=
- Re: Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding, Helge Hess, 2002/02/24
- Re[6]: EOKeyValueCoding, Manuel Guesdon, 2002/02/24
- Re: Re[6]: EOKeyValueCoding, Philippe C.D. Robert, 2002/02/24
- Re: Re[6]: EOKeyValueCoding, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/24
- Re: EOKeyValueCoding, Adam Fedor, 2002/02/24
- Re: EOKeyValueCoding, Nicola Pero, 2002/02/24
- Re[2]: EOKeyValueCoding, Manuel Guesdon, 2002/02/25
- Re: Re[2]: EOKeyValueCoding, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2002/02/25
- Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding, Manuel Guesdon, 2002/02/25
- Re: Re[4]: EOKeyValueCoding, Nicola Pero, 2002/02/25