Re: Gorm source reorganization

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 2005-03-29 03:12:23 +0100 Gregory John Casamento 
<address@hidden> wrote:

> Policy concerning Frameworks vs. Libraries: Basically if the code depends on
> any resources to be present, it's going to be a framework, if not, it'll be 
> a
> library.

That doesn't sound wise ... frameworks are explicitly 'not supported' under 
windows (and possibly don't work an a variety of other platforms either), 
and don't actually add any functionality that we don't already have in 
bundles.  It makes more sense to use libraries where no resources are 
rquired, and bundles where resources are needed.
I know Nicola recently argued for a 'clean-up' of the structure of Gorm ... 
but my reading of it was that he was suggesting making it more portable not 
less portable.

Back when framework support for gnu/linux was first introduced, Helge argued 
for *not* introducing frameworks, on the grounds that they add no 
functionality but supporting/maintaining them implies time-wasting 
overtheads.  Now that they have been around for a while, I tend to agree 
with him, and while I don't work on the make system and the framework code 
myself, so I'm not about to do anything there, if there was a move to drop 
framework support entirely, I certainly wouldn't argue against it, and I'd 
defintely adviuse anyone attempting to write portable code to use the 
simpler bundle mechanism.

I don't know exactly what Nicola means by 'not supported' on windows ... it 
might mean that he has no intention of ever trying to get frameworks to work 
there, it might mean that he hasn't had the time.  From previous discussion 
on the way frameworks are implemented elsewhere, I don't think anyone has 
even figured out a way to implement them on windows without making multiple 
copies of files cluttering things up (and introducing tremendous fragility), 
or persuading compiler/linker people to build in support for them.