[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[2]: gsweb questions

From: Manuel Guesdon
Subject: Re[2]: gsweb questions
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:51:28 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:10:51 -0500 Kim Shrier <address@hidden> wrote:

 >| Mirko Viviani wrote:
 >| > 
 >| > On Wed, 09 May 2001, Kim Shrier wrote:
 >| > > 1. Is the intent of gsweb to be a drop-in replacement for WO 4.x. 
 >| > > In particular, should WO applications be written using WOxxx 
 >| > > class names or GSWxxx class names. I see that originally the 
 >| > > GSWxxx classes were written and then some code was added for 
 >| > > WOxxx compatibility. Which direction is gsweb heading?
 >| >
 >| > What do you mean exactly ?
 >| Is gsweb supposed to look exactly like WebObjects or is it only
 >| supposed to work like it.  Is the intent for people to write
 >| applications that will run under both WebObjects and gsweb or
 >| is gsweb going to extend the framework and encourage people to
 >| use the extensions.
 >| Another related question is, can I take a WO application that
 >| is running on Mac OSX and simply recompile it on a FreeBSD
 >| system with gsweb and have it work without any source changes?

The ultimate goal was this. I say was because WO5 will be Java based.
GNUstepWeb currently does not work exactly like WO because there some part 
which are not finished or written, some WO
way of doing things are very strange and I can't guess what it's doing (or want 
to do exactly), so I coded things the
best I can. The parser is base on libxml (or antlr if you choose it) and some 
things are parsed differently (I haven't
verified but webobject tags in strings or in java are not parsed in GNUstepWeb).
There's extensions in gsweb but you can disable them.

 >| > > 2. There are gswapp.make and gswbundle.make files as well as 
 >| > > woapp.make and wobundle.make files. Either set looks like 
 >| > > it needs a little tweeking to get them working. Is the
 >| > ??? They are working.
 >| Yes, if you add the appropriate things to Makefile.preamble.  I
 >| was looking at brain.make and at the files in the
 >| Makefiles/Additional directory.  It looks like the intent is
 >| that there should be a file Makefiles/Additional/gsweb.make
 >| that would contain definitions for GSW_LDFLAGS, GSW_LIBS, and
 >| GSW_DEFINE macros that would handle linking with the
 >| appropriate libraries as well as provide a macro that the
 >| source could test to see it it is being built as part of
 >| a gsweb application.  I have written one up and will send it
 >| in to address@hidden so that it can be added to the make
 >| package if this is the desired thing to do.
 >| There are notes in brain.make that indicate that the same sort
 >| of thing should be done for woapp.make.  If everybody is using
 >| gswapp.make instead of woapp.make, should woapp.make and also
 >| wobundle.make be dropped from the make package?

I  use gswapp for GNUstepWeb Applications:

here is an extract of the GNUmakefile for an application:


# The bundle resource files and directories
anInfo.plist \


Main.wo \
CustomerPage.wo \
VisitorPage.wo \
ActionsPage.wo \

myapp_LANGUAGES= \



# The Objective-C source files to be compiled
myapp_OBJC_FILES = \
Session.m \
DirectAction.m \

myapp_HEADER_FILES = \
Session.h \
DirectAction.h \


DIST_FILES = $(SRCS) $(HDRS) GNUmakefile Makefile.postamble Makefile.preamble

-include Makefile.preamble

include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/aggregate.make
include $(GNUSTEP_MAKEFILES)/gswapp.make

-include Makefile.postamble

Here is part of the Makefile.preamble:

# Additional LDFLAGS to pass to the linker
ifeq ($(debug), yes)
        ADDITIONAL_LDFLAGS = -lgnustep-base_d -lFoundationExt_d -lgnustep-db2_d 
-lgnustep-db2control_d -lgdl2-postgresql_d -lpq -lGSWeb -lGSANTLR_d  -lgsgd_d 
-lgd -lz -lpam  -lcrypt -lgscrypt_d -lvwData -lgnustep-base_d -lreuters_d 
-lobjc -lquoteServerBase
        ADDITIONAL_LDFLAGS = -lgnustep-base -lFoundationExt -lgnustep-db2 
-lgnustep-db2control -lgdl2-postgresql -lpq -lGSWeb -lGSANTLR -lgsgd -lgd -lz 
-lpam  -lcrypt -lgscrypt -lvwData -lreuters -lobjc -lquoteServerBase

 >| >| > > intent that the gswxxx.make files for projects using the 
 >| > > GSWxxx naming conventions and the woxxx.make files for 
 >| > > projects using WOxxx names? Is one naming convention 
 >| > > going to be the "prefered" naming convention?
 >| >
 >| > They are not intended for naming convenction. I've never used
 >| > woxxx.make, only gsweb*
 >| Maybe I am reading too much into what I am seeing in the make
 >| files and support classes.

I can't remember the purpose of wo*.make.
You can use gsw*.make with WO naming. The 'prefered' (default) naming 
convention is defined by the XXApplicationMain: calling WOApplicationMain do a 
GSWebNamingConv=WONAMES_INDEX and calling GSWApplicationMain do a 

Most of search wich need names try first GSWebNamingConv and next the other one.
For exemple calling WOApplicationMain will make GNUstepWeb searching for .wo 
and next (if not found) for .gswc
Calling GSWApplicationMain will make GNUstepWeb searching for .gswc and next 
(if not found) for .wo

 >| > > 3. Since I am new to WebObjects, does someone have a simple 
 >| > > gsweb app that I could use to test out my setup and that 
 >| > > I could use as an example of a functioning gsweb application?
 >| >
 >| > I've only the simple HelloWorld. It's a bit old and I don't know
 >| > if it works correctly now.

I haven't another publically available one for the moment :-(

Manuel Guesdon - ORANGE CONCEPT <address@hidden>
14 rue Jean-Baptiste Clement  -  93200 Saint-Denis  -  France
Tel: +33 1 4940 0997  -  Fax: +33 1 4940 0998

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]