Stefan Urbanek wrote:
Hi,
I am moving this to gnustep-dev...
On 3.3.2006, at 17:47, Adam Fedor wrote:
On 2006-02-21 08:07:01 -0700 Dmitri Sotnikov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I understand that both the Cocoa API and GNUstep inherit from the
NeXTSTEP
API, having read the documentation at gnustep.org, I notice that
it is already possible to cross-compile basic applications between
Cocoa and
GNUstep, so I was wondering if it is one of project goals to eventually
have full cocoa compatibility.
You can read here about our mission
http://www.gnustep.org/information/mission.html
Cocoa compatibility is a goal, but one that is almost impossible to
fully achieve.
To what exact point it is a goal? What is on "the radar" and what is not?
What are the definitions of sets depicted in the following diagram?
http://stefan.agentfarms.net/Download/GNUstep/DesignNotes/GNUstep%20and%20Cocoa.png
Clear definition would help.
I agree, this is the first step. To this end, I fleshed out the GNUstep
Cocoa wiki page at http://mediawiki.gnustep.org/index.php/Cocoa with a
small amount of extra information on GNUstep/Cocoa compatibility, and
outlined what should be there in the future. I also included the image
linked above on that page.
For example, I am now developing "on the real thing", but I would like
to keep GNUstep compatibility. To achieve this, I need a clear list of
what I can use and what I can not use from Cocoa. That is, I need to
know, what is planned for gnustep (does not have to be fully implemented
at this time) and what is not going to be in gnustep in any way.
Right. This currently doesn't exist, but we need to work together to
create a compatibility matrix, and then keep it up to date.
Stefan Urbanek
p.s.: Btw. why is old OpenStep compatibility so important? Is not new
OpenStep what we define now by defining API that is common for GNUstep
and Cocoa??
I don't think it should be. OpenStep is dead. I think in practice, there
have been at least a few instances where we've gone with the cocoa
implementation over the OS one because it was more sane/non-buggy. Our
policy needs to reflect what the devs have been doing in practice for
some time now. The reverse isn't possible any more. We need to move the
project forward, not cement it in time.
p.p.s: from the mission statement: "We won't remove things, even if they
have been removed by Apple." why not, regardless of apple? Death is so
natural to life...
Indeed it is. This policy statement is too absolute and should probably
be changed to allow for more wiggle room. Statements like that, if
nothing else, serve to scare away potential contributors, in my opinion.
Continual bloat isn't a good thing. What do others think?
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
