[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Release schedule

From: Adam Fedor
Subject: Re: Release schedule
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 17:06:17 -0700

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 02:57 PM, Chris B. Vetter wrote:
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.

If Cocoa related stuff was extracted from base/ and gui/ and placed in
a seperate, say, cocoa/ directory, you'd only need a compile time
option. Alternatively, the Cocoa header files could be wrapped in an
#ifndef STRICT_OPENSTEP ... #endif.

While I think it would be useful to step back and make sure that we have a clean, working OpenStep implementation, I don't think it's useful to somehow separate the OpenStep parts of the system from the Non-OpenStep ones. Some of the changes in GNUstep from the OpenStep spec are as simple as a change in the return type of a method or trivial changes in method names. Some things you can't cleanly separate, some GNUstep extensions are required for the operation of the library (we've just made these extensions public rather than hiding them).

I think it would be better to clearly document where we have a complete, complient OpenStep implementation, and perhaps develop the testsuite to verify that it works correctly.

reply via email to

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