Re: Frameworks integration

[NeXT]

Hmm, I think I did make some mistake. I think SOPE cannot be used with 
GDL2, because it contains
EOControl. And in case of WO compatibility, yes, I cannot find any 
difference between SOPE and
GNUstepWeb. (Yes, my testing application is very simple) And without 
apple's tool(which I run on
windows) SOPE's template definition is more easy with text editor than 
original WO template definition.

I hope I did not make another misunderstandind here :-)

On 2004-02-29 06:23:52 +0900 Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org> 
wrote:

> On 28.02.2004, at 06:21, S.J.Chun wrote:
> > At least, GNUstepWeb and SOPE has each merits: GNUstepWeb is much 
> > more 
> > compatible with WebObjects in terms of EOF, and SOPE is known for 
> > its more 
> > mature state. :-)
>
> No, not really.
>
> First:  EOF is a completely separate issue, of course you could also 
> use GDL2 
> with SOPE and this isn't part of gnustep-web.
>
> Second: I think NGObjWeb is more compatible with WebObjects than 
> gnustep-web 
> (eg concerning template parsing, though we have stripped out some 
> stuff for 
> OGo [but could put back things like "WEBOBJECT" instead of "#" or 
> .woo files 
> in case someone actually cares <I guess not>]).
>
> > I'm using and testing both of them, and it's very interesting...
>
> Well, if you find anything where SOPE is not compatible with WO 
> (again: let 
> alone EOF, completely different framework), let me know. We could 
> make a list 
> on that and explain ;-)
>
> PS: Absolutely no offense intended wrt gnustep-web. Its just that 
> NGObjWeb 
> should provide everything it does yet is several years more mature 
> and also 
> provides much in addition. So it might make sense to focus efforts on 
> this 
> area, but if there is no interest, I'm fine as well ;-) Of course its 
> really 
> annoying to have duplicate development.
>
> regards,
>   Helge