Nicola Pero schrieb: >>Eg something I consider more "duplicate efforts" is libSQLClient >>because this is already covered by the GDL1 *and* GDL2 adaptor level > > Yes ... but it's also nice to have different packages for different types of > users. ;-) > > I suppose if you want to remove duplication, at this point why not re-base > GDL > on SQLClient :-)
FWIW, I think you right about it being good to have different packages for different users. In my view current GDL2 users have a requirement aka constraint that that SQLClient users do not have. That is WO45 compatibility. This includes the nasty KVC and EOObserver-dealloc method-swizzling and hacks in GDL2. This gives SQLClient (and EOF-like layers using SQLClient) the freedom to make it's own design decisions and develop that design in the future. Of course we could add new features as optional extensions but certain design decisions will constrain you. SQLClient doesn't have this constraint. It can go wherever experience leads it. If the GDL2/GSWeb designs weren't so powerful for certain type of applications, I would recommend building on top of SQLClient and a newer independent XML/XHTML templating library someone still comes up with in favor of them. In this respect I must admit that both GDL2 and GSWeb could be considered dead end streets. OTOH, I also believe that the full potential of their concepts can produce powerful applications we haven't seen here yet and frameworks building on SQLClient should take a good look at GDL2 and see what concepts and code it can recycle. But rebasing GDL2 on SQLClient does not seem feasible in my view. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
