[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Release schedule

From: Tim Harrison
Subject: Re: Release schedule
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 16:37:42 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

Chris B. Vetter wrote:

In my opinion (that is, I'm only talking for my person), core/ should be
a straight forward implementation of Openstep (whatever the correct
spelling is ;-)

I very much agree with Chris on this point. It's stable, unchanged, and provides an excellently documented base to work from.

If, for example, -base is, indeed, very much OpenStep compliant, it wouldn't be too terrible to go through, pull out the non-OpenStep stuff, set it aside, and clean up the rest.

Once that is accomplished, it would provide a common foundation we can
then use to implement "enhancements" in form of Cocoa classes and
methods, as categories, bundles, whatever.

As long as they add value to the end product, yes. However, my hope would be that one could retain the STRICT_OPENSTEP option, or some equivalent, or be able to only use the OpenStep compliant part of GNUstep, without causing problems. That way, applications ported from OPENSTEP, or an application built using GNUstep's OpenStep core/ would be sure to run everywhere, with predictable results.

Yes, I know that may be a bit naive, as such an approach is probably TOO
straight forward, since Cocoa replaces or changes behaviour of already
existing methods and classes.

See above.

(good lord, I use a whole hell of a lot of commas)


Tim Harrison

reply via email to

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