All,

Since we're discussing changes that should be made to the current source,  I 
would like to suggest that we restructure how the code is built.

A lot of code seems to be shared between the tube model and other parts of 
GNUspeech in a somewhat non-conventional way using Xcode's ability to include 
code from any directory (not just the project directory).   I propose, instead, 
that we examine what the comment portions of the application are and pull them 
out into a framework that all of the apps can link against.  

This is a much more logical structure as it:
1) Makes GNUspeech's core code reusable by applications outside of those in 
GNUspeech
2) Is a more conventional way of structuring the code
3) Makes it easier to build on GNUstep.

Later, GJC
--
Gregory Casamento

----- Original Message ----
From: David Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Greg Casamento <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Steve Nygard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
gnuspeech <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 11:47:19 PM
Subject: Re: cvs

Hi Eric,

You need to coordinate with Greg Casamento and Steve Nygard.  Adam  
Fedor did a lot of work originally to change the NeXT code to  
OpenStep/Cocoa and Greg is working on the GNUStep port.  At the very  
least, if you are making big changes, you probably ought to work on a  
split and merge later when it can be shown that you haven't caused  
problems.

In response to you latest comment that this ought to be posted to the  
list -- yes.  I should have thought of that.  I'll post them and then  
post this.

Live long and prosper!

david


On Oct 15, 2006, at 8:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Oh, one more thing. The way I am doing the port to OS X may be more  
> 'invasive' than what you had in mind. As I am going through the  
> source code, I am essentially changing everything that is done in a  
> C/C++ style (such as the use of C strings, const char * , etc.) and  
> changing them to use the equivalent Objective-C classes (e.g.  
> NSString).  Also, there are places that use data structures such as  
> an NXHashtable which in the OS X world is a "core foundation" class  
> (CFHashtable or some such), which is part of Carbon. While these  
> core foundation classes would work fine in Cocoa as well, I am  
> changing these to use the equivalent Cocoa Objective-C class (such  
> as NSDictionary); essentially I am taking a pure Cocoa approach.
>
> Furthermore, none of the NEXTstep Objective-C code will work as-is  
> in Cocoa. On the most basic level, at least the NX prefixes on all  
> the Objective-C classes have to be changed to NS prefixes.
>
> Here is my concern, however: while all this is a good way to port  
> the application to a native Cocoa application, and is a good way  
> for me to learn all about Cocoa on OS X, I have no idea what the  
> implications to this are for the port to GNUstep.
>
> Eric
>

[snip]





_______________________________________________
gnuspeech-contact mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnuspeech-contact

Reply via email to