I am a neophyte when it comes to Cocoa and ObjC so forgive me if his question is nonsensical and the answer is obvious to you seasoned professionals. I decided to tackle a formidable task: learning Cocoa and Objective-C by approaching them through Python and Perl which I know and find better 'RAD' tools (though I do know C and C++ and have written some small Carbon applications using XCode and Code Warrior in the past). So I face a steep and formidable learning curve akin to soloing the Eiger in Winter perhaps. But here goes...
I have to say I am a bit confused on the two very different sets of directions for using PyObjC and I want to use the tools a formal way to avoid as much obsolescence of my projects as possible: 1. The Tutorials on the SourceForge site present a somewhat traditional way of creating outlets and actions and linking them to an instantiated class in Interface Builder before executing py2app. However, unlike using the Camel Bones Perl ObjC Bridge, I have to run the external build tool outside of Xcode to make a build. I find the Camel Bones method much easier and it almost tempts me to go back to using Perl over Python (I said _almost_ ;-) $$$$$This means that once py2app is run though, I cannot change my nib files because the outlets and actions won't be 'bridged' or will they? 2. The Apple documentation describes an entirely different process which involves the Bindings tab of the Inspector in Interface Builder and I don't really understand it very well. What confuses me is this: 1) are they two different methods of achieving the same end and eventually will coalesce into some standard that fits Xcode better or 2) are they instead stark differences in philosophy and underlying architecture in accessing the PyObjC Bridge which will stay diverged with one eventually obviating the other? The advantage of the Apple-documented way is that I can use Xcode for building the application which is very convenient and consistent but I don't really 'get' the Binding tab just yet since I would think that it would show the bindings I make the traditional way with the Control-click graphic connections if the underlying architecture is consistent--and it doesn't. So they seem mutually exclusive and not consistent in Xcode. That worries me frankly--it makes them both seem more like hacks. It seems to be one way or another. I find this 'schizophenic' approach to development tools unsettling and it concerns me that I risk very fast obsolescence of my work if I pick the wrong build approach. Or worse: that both methods are just temporary and will disappear capriciously one OS revision without warning.So it begs the question: which method will be the 'main- stream' recommendation going forward? The SourceForge team is clearly a standard-setter but then again Apple has 'vendor power' when it comes to Cocoa and Objective-C. The Apple way is far better integrated with Xcode but seems strained and awkward when creating the outlets and actions because it doesn't use the 'standard' that Objective-C/Cocoa projects use and all the Cocoa tutorials use.. Or am I just confused because Cocoa and the Apple Tools is fairly opaque to me at this point? _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
