Hello All:
I have been reading through the threads on the topic and I am a
little nervous on the direction that it appears to be taking. If all
could please clarify. Reading the emails it almost appears that we
are trying to "axe" everything that brings the native experience of a
MAC to the end user. It would be a shame to see something that has
the attitude of "it's just easier to do it this way let's just forget
about bundles and frameworks", hey it works. True, it might work,
but like Eric has said this is not the standard MAC way of doing it
and might not work in the future. Now for running command line
args, I have not fully tested since it probably depends on the
install_name setup but you can use the open command to open an
application bundle and also, I do believe, that you can pass quoted
arguments to the application:
open mybundledapp.app "args"
Eric W. is this true?
It seems to me that CMake needs to be fixed and not let's "cripple"
the native experience due to lack of support on the CMake part for
bundles and frameworks. In all fairness every platform has a
different tweak to enjoy the native experience that the platform
offers. Just my opinion, until CMake is fixed I would not
prematurely get rid of the xcode projects. Not sure if that was
under consideration as well.
Take care
Garrett
On Jun 5, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Robert Osfield wrote:
Hi Stephan,
I was going to suggest what you have just done - Makefile build
without bundles, Xcode build with bundles, this is in effect the way
its been under OSX even before CMake.
The caveat to this many (most) of the examples require command line
parameters, even the osgviewer example requires command line
parameters, so one is left with the question about what to do about
all these examples. Can bundles be built to run with a default
command line option? Can bundles be built to run a simple script
which allows the user to specify command line options and files? If
this is possible how might we go about specifying this per example.
Also if you go this approach, how might you might it work for point
and click running of example on all platforms?
Lots of question that we won't be able to answer before 2.0, but
something to think about post 2.0. Right now the task is making sure
that things compile and run stable.
Robert.
On 6/5/07, Stephan Maximilian Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
to chime in: I am missing the functionality to run a script to see if
all examples do work as expected. So I vote for bundleless
examples. The
whole OS X stuff should be documented well so people know, what to
do,
if they want bundled examples.
Perhaps when cmake creates XCode-project files, then the examples
should
be compiled as bundles so they will run from inside XCode. There
you can
specify optional command line arguments and env-vars and there you'll
see in the run-log, what happened when an app could not start.
When compiling the unix-way with makefiles from cMake then the
example
should be build not as bundles, so they work as expected.
So both sides get their best: OS X developers used to XCode get
bundles
and unix-hacker get bundleless apps :)
Any news about building frameworks from cMake either with XCode or
with
MakeFiles?
just my two cents,
Stephan
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@openscenegraph.net
http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users
http://www.openscenegraph.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@openscenegraph.net
http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users
http://www.openscenegraph.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@openscenegraph.net
http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users
http://www.openscenegraph.org/
