Re: XML idea

[Alex Perez]

On Jan 8, 2004, at 2:48 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:

> > It would be nice if the PortabilityKit team finished some of the 
> > classes
> > that are semi-portable between GNUstep and Cocoa (such as the
> > NSDocument architecture, for example).
> > Do the PortabilityKit team plan to submit fixes for classes already in
> > GNUstep?
>
> If what they want to achieve is easy portability, it would be criminal 
> if
> they didn't finish the unfinished classes in GNUstep :-)
I agree. Step number one is to document which classes are in fact 
unfinished. If there are any/many you know of off the top of your head, 
let me know, okay?
> > From the other side, I think GNUstep should remove
> > poorly-designed / unfinished classes (like NSToolBar and NSDrawer)
> > and let the PortabilityKit team implement them.
>
> Why don't they just finish those classes and contribute them to 
> GNUstep ?
Politics, pure and simple.
> It's easy to make everyone happy with stuff like NSToolBar.  We put an
> implementation in gnustep-gui.  If you are an OpenStep purist and don't
> want to use it, you don't use it - you can ignore it.  If you are an
> Apple-compatible guy and want to use it, you use it.  I don't see why 
> we
> should remove NSToolBar from gnustep-gui.  The problem arises when 
> adding
> Apple compatibility pollutes or confuses the original OpenStep classes
> (then, we need a "superior workaround").  Adding an additional separate
> class does not.
I know at least one core developer who will likely fight the inclusion 
of NSToolbar. Many think Apple's Toolbar implementation sucks. In 
PortabilityKit, we don't make those kind of value-based decisions about 
classes, because that's not what the project is about.
--
Alex Perez
aperez@student.santarosa.edu
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat 
it."
--Thomas Jefferson