[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What should and should not go in?
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: What should and should not go in? |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Jan 2004 06:02:36 +0000 |
On 24 Jan 2004, at 05:25, Gregory John Casamento wrote:
All,
I am wondering where all of the fuss about "this was not in OpenStep
and
therefore shouldn't go in" is coming from, as I've been hearing this a
lot
lately.
It's not coming from the GNUstep developers anyway ... I have not
noticed
any GNUstep developer say that all MacOS-X extensions should be kept
out of GNUstep. Even Alexanders objections to NSToolBar (which are
specific to that class) might well be swayed if someone contributed
good,
clean, simple. mantainable code.
OpenStep is a standard that was created in 1994, a decade ago, that
standard is dated to say the least. So, why would we want to tie
ourselves to
this especially when MOSX represents an extension of it?
I believe our policy statement has (for a long, long time) said that we
are
(and will remain) OpenStep compatible AND that we track changes in
MacOS-X
to remain compatible with that. To me, that's pretty clear.
The website also used to say that where the two are incompatible we will
find workarounds and superior solutions :-)
What we need is to clearly define the types of things we
should/shouldn't
include in GNUstep. Using the recent NSToolbar spat as an example, I,
personally, believe that we should put it in, despite any technical
objections,
simply because it's used by a number of applications under MOSX and,
with it's
inclusion, we'll attract those who've used it. Now, I'm not saying
that there
are tens of thousands of developers who want to use NSToolbar. No.
I'm
asserting that the more we stray from MOSX, the more we loose potential
developers and users.
Yes.
Where MacOS-X classes are missing, it's because nobody has contributed
a good implementation yet, not because there is any hidden policy to
keep
them out.