Le 8 mars 05, à 17:58, M. Uli Kusterer a écrit :

At 21:41 Uhr +0100 07.03.2005, Stefan Urbanek wrote:

How it should be? Instead of creating an application, create a
framework. Self-sufficient application should be considered a prototype and proof of concept for given functionality. Application should be only an user interface for a framework. The application should be as thin as
possible.

(...)

Moreover, the framework should be split into two: UI and non-UI part.

(...)

Thoughts?

1) Installation hassles: This would mean one would have to install three parts, in three different locations, and uninstall them to get rid of the app: Framework, App and Tool.

I think we could extend make_services crawler tool to discover Framework and Tool packaged in application bundles, then no need to have such install process. A Spotlight-like crawler would be proably later the best solution to provide transparent installation by drag/drop… (Mac OS X Library folders are a real pain to clean when you add/remove applications on your system often, even when you consider this situation has improved a lot compared to Mac OS classic)

IMHO, it shouldn't be too hard to code apps so they can be used as tools as well. Just call path/to/MyApp.app/MyApp --param --param2 and you can use it as a command line tool. This would reduce the entire thing to one self-contained app, which is easily installed and uninstalled. If you find yourself using an app as a tool often, you'd symlink it into your PATH.

yep, why not.

Is it possible on all platforms to embed a framework in an app? Could we maybe embed that framework in the app bundle and then just symlink it into /Library/Frameworks/ or so for other apps to link to?

Any GNUstep applications can embed a library (with some hand written code), then it's not different than to embed a framework.

Actually, developers aren't selfish, they're lazy ;-). Instead of trying to implement best practices that require developers to rewrite the apps they worked so hard on, maybe a better idea would be to try and find an approach that requires as few changes as possible to existing apps, or brings them significant benefits *now* while making it easy to later adapt 'components'.

I think that's what where we would like to go.

Quentin.

--
Quentin Mathé
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Reply via email to