[Marcus asked me to post his replies to the list (2)] Marcus Müller schrieb: >> Hmm, so I guess anyone needing GDL2 would have to set that define for >> -base. > > > Yes, I guess so. For the time being I'd like to see that as being the > default, but strictly speaking it's only there for legacy code. If GDL2 > really should be considered legacy is up for discussion, in Cocoa it's > definitely the case. > >> I understand that -base intends to track Cocoa while GDL2 and GSWeb aim >> at an ancient static API. I could also instead transfer the now missing >> methods to GDL2 but maybe we can work out a better approach by >> extracting defined KVC API's into separate Frameworks/Libraries/ Bundles >> which can be linked/loaded by applications that require them, rather >> than having -configure decide for the entire GNUstep installation. > > > That's probably the best approach. > >> That way apps can choose the semantics they want by linking/loading the >> compatibility code or not. Of course some apps (like GORM) will still >> face some rather volatile behavior when they start loading GDL2 code >> Palettes and therefor combine code expecting different semantics. > > > That's a major drawback, and my fix does its best to help in exactly > these kinds of situations. > >> Not really sure what the best course of action is... it may not be >> feasible to have GDL2/GSWeb rely on current -base > > > I think your suggested approach would be best for all these cases. > > Cheers, > > Marcus >
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
