On 6 Feb 2009, at 7:40 PM, Maxwell, Adam R wrote: > On 02/06/09 07:18, "Christiaan Hofman" <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What do people think of ditching the Omni frameworks over time? I >> think they're overall more a frustration than a joy, and I think Adam >> agrees with me (actually he started this). And I don't look forward >> to >> upgrading to 10.6, given that the Omni frameworks are still heavily >> based on 10.4 and even 10.3. > > I think the latest version of the frameworks cleans things up a bit > with > regards to legacy code, although I'm not sure if they're compatible > with > 10.4. They're still full of overrides and Omni-specific solutions. >
Problems associated to updating the frameworks is precisely what I like to avoid, apart from the fact that there's a lot about the omni frameworks I hate. And BD really uses a small part of them. >> It would be quite a bit of work, but I >> think it's doable. And it can be done in 3 steps. I already think >> I've >> a pretty good view of what should be done to remove OmniAppKit, >> including a replacement for the preferences. > > I have a few suggestions: > > 1) create a branch (duh) Merging in using SVN is a bit of a mess. But sure, especially as it would probably take a while. > 2) drop 10.4 support at the same time > 3) avoid incorporating bindings at the same time > > Dropping 10.4 lets you use the kit's source list table/outline views > instead > of the OAGradientTableView, and allows cleanup to proceed using for/ > in and > properties if desired. Dumping the Omni frameworks will also likely > introduce a bunch of regressions that are 10.4-specific, and > debugging those > will be a PITA. I think that's a separate issue. I don't really see sufficient reasons yet to drop 10.4 support. > Using bindings on a project that multiple people are developing is a > big > problem, IMO, because it's hard to see what's changed in a diff or > figure > out what the binding paths are. This kept me from working on the > BD2 test, > and also Skim, to some extent, as it became impossible to keep up with > changes and reverse-engineer everything in IB to see how it worked. > > -- > adam On the other hand bindings can really clean things up. I like it much more than the annoying glue code. I would rather move things to bindings. But I understand your point. Christiaan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Create and Deploy Rich Internet Apps outside the browser with Adobe(R)AIR(TM) software. With Adobe AIR, Ajax developers can use existing skills and code to build responsive, highly engaging applications that combine the power of local resources and data with the reach of the web. Download the Adobe AIR SDK and Ajax docs to start building applications today-http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-com _______________________________________________ Bibdesk-develop mailing list Bibdesk-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bibdesk-develop
