[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Frameworks integration
From: |
Helge Hess |
Subject: |
Re: Frameworks integration |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:00:56 +0100 |
On 29.02.2004, at 01:53, NeXT wrote:
Hmm, I think I did make some mistake. I think SOPE cannot be used with
GDL2, because it contains EOControl.
Well, so do not compile the EOControl coming with SOPE but just use
GDL2 instead ;-)
Granted, there might be some minor issues since we did not try SOPE
with GDL2 yet, but after all SOPE/EOControl should be a subset of
GDL2/EOControl in case the GDL2 one is really compatible with EOF 4.
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.
Yes. Actually NGObjWeb did support <WEBOBJECT> tags and it would be
rather trivial to "re-add" the support for them. But as you say, the #
syntax is way easier to write than the WEBOBJECT one which is only
interesting if you want to use rapid-turnaround in SOPE:X (in the case
of existing .wo wrappers you can use a trivial SED script to move the
<WEBOBJECT> syntax to <#>).
best regards,
Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org
- Re: Frameworks integration, (continued)
- Re: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/02/27
- Re[2]: Frameworks integration, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/02/28
- Re: Frameworks integration, nicolas, 2004/02/28
- Re: Frameworks integration, Helge Hess, 2004/02/28
- Re: Frameworks integration, Quentin Mathé, 2004/02/28
- Re: Frameworks integration, Adam Fedor, 2004/02/28
Re: Frameworks integration, Brent Fulgham, 2004/02/27
Re: Frameworks integration, S.J.Chun, 2004/02/28