[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Release schedule

From: Alexander Malmberg
Subject: Re: Release schedule
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:50:27 +0200

Adam Fedor wrote:
> On Sunday, March 30, 2003, at 07:15 PM, Alexander Malmberg wrote:
> > Adam Fedor wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Well, there are a bit too many probably:s and generally:s in that for
> > me
> > to call it clear; I find the whole thing rather vague. Eg. when is
> > there
> > a real problem, and when does something count as documented so we
> > should
> > implement it?
> True, it is wishy-washy. What I hope to convey is that we want
> OpenStep/OPENSTEP compatibility, but we also want the flexibility, if
> something in Cocoa is truely a better API, to implement that in
> preference to the OpenStep API.

This isn't what I read from it, but it seems like a reasonable approach.

> Perhaps if someone can come up with better wording, then we could agree
> on a change.

Hmm, how about:
The primary goal for core/ is to provide an implementation of the
FoundationKit and ApplicationKit interfaces of OPENSTEP, which was
essentially a superset of the OpenStep specification.

OpenStep and OPENSTEP are static today. Apple provides Cocoa, which is
based on the same interfaces but has numerous additions and changes. It
is not our goal to track these changes. However, when an addition or
change in Cocoa is sound and appropriate for the scope of core/, we may
add this addition or change to our interfaces.

Reasons for not adding a change include:
* causing compatibility problems with OPENSTEP. Thus, we will not remove
things removed in Cocoa.
* being platform-specific. We provide a cross-platform implementation.
* being inappropriate for the scope of core/. In some cases, we may
instead provide a library, or point to a third-party library, that
provides similar functionality. (Example here?: For instance, instead of
adding the 20 or so trivial scripting classes to the base/Foundation
library for scripting, we have StepTalk, Rigs, and gnustep-guile.)

> >> Although, it doesn't appear to be exactly what you would prefer.
> >
> > Under "API", it is fairly clear that the goal is to follow cocoa, but
> > under "The Future" it says that the goal is to provide a superior
> > development environment "regardless of the commercial forces driving
> > any
> > specific API.". How is this supposed to be read?
> I was looking beyond a 1.0 GUI release, where we might want to change
> the focus to better serve our target audience (whoever that is).

Heh, this is very vague. :) Wouldn't it be better to simply say that we
will review and adapt our goals as necessary?

- Alexander Malmberg

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]