[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML idea
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: XML idea |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:41:48 +0000 |
On 7 Jan 2004, at 11:32, Helge Hess wrote:
On 07.01.2004, at 11:09, richard@tiptree.demon.co.uk wrote:
The extensions library is available for a looong time. Not sure why
we need a new "PortabilityKit" library.
The problem with the extension library was that its copyright was not
owned by the FSF, and I think FSF policy was that it should therefore
not be distributed as part of GNUstep.
Of course. Did someone ever talk with Ovidiu (which probably holds the
Copyright on most stuff) before rewriting everything
I'm pretty sure it would have not been an issue for him to assign
copyright.
Sigh ...
I believe the issue of getting the copyright assigned was looked into
and there were idealogical reasons for the copyright holders not doing
it.
For this reason, the base additions library was added to the base
library, so extensions and portability issues could be addressed by
code which (while clearly separated from the main base library source
for clarity) would be available as part of the core distribution.
Which is an excellent decision - something like GSXML really does not
belong into Foundation and was actually one of my major complains on
gstep-base ;-).
But on the other side the question is whether Apple extensions always
belong into Foundation and not into Foundation-additions? I think it
is important that GNUstep makes a statement on this, so that I know
what classes I can safely use between Cocoa, gstep-base and
libFoundation.
If it's in additions, it's also in base ... since a build of the base
library incorporates additions.
If it's in additions, you should be able to use it in MacOS-X either
natively or by using the additions library.
I really don't think you can produce a definitive statement on new
MacOS-X features ... they keep changing.
Some we might want to incorporate directly into the base library
(probably most changes to existing classes
and new classes we think are really well designed), others we might put
in the additions library for compatibility
but not treat as 'core'.
In other words, I think that if/when we get contributions of MacOS-X
classes we don't particularly like, we could
put them in the additions library, and document them as unsupported or
semi-supported ... meaning that the
core developers would give low priority to their support.
- Re: XML idea, (continued)
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Pete French, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Jason Clouse, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/06
- Re: XML idea, richard, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Marcel Weiher, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Pete French, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Alex Perez, 2004/01/07
- Re: XML idea, Helge Hess, 2004/01/07