On 1/11/14, 8:49 PM, Eric Wing wrote: > On 1/11/14, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Jan 11, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Darin Adler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 11, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Ideally it should be USE(THE_SPECIFIC_FRAMEWORK_IN_QUESTION). I would >>>> guess that much of PLATFORM(MAC) that is valid for both Mac and iOS >>>> should actually be USE(FOUNDATION). PLATFORM really shouldn't be used for >>>> things other than terminal platform names. USE(COCOA) would be an ok >>>> stopgap if sorting down to more specific conditionals delays this cleanup >>>> too much. >>> >>> Sorting down to specific conditionals will definitely delay the cleanup >>> too much! >>> >>> Thinking about USE(FOUNDATION) and looking at code it’s clear that the Mac >>> and iOS ports have a lot more in common than Foundation. I saw that >>> looking at PLATFORM(MAC) code snippets. >> >> I saw that too after looking at more. >> >>> But as long as we’re going to have something incorrect as a first >>> approximation, I don’t think that incorrect uses of USE(FOUNDATION) are >>> significantly worse than incorrect uses of USE(COCOA). If long term there >>> is not supposed to be such a thing as USE(COCOA), then I would hate to add >>> it and then have to remove it later. >>> >>> It remains clear to me that a valuable and quick first step is to >>> mechanically change PLATFORM(MAC) to BAR, and I am OK with BAR being >>> USE(FOUNDATION), USE(COCOA), or PLATFORM(COCOA). >>> >>> I am sure there is a lot of easy refinement we can do immediately after. >>> For example, we can change BAR && !PLATFORM(IOS) back to PLATFORM(MAC), if >>> we can’t find an even better conditional. Maybe our first step can even be >>> clever and not ever change such things to BAR, as suggested by Dan. >>> >>> I’d like to play the numbers game, so if our best guess is that most >>> PLATFORM(MAC) should be USE(FOUNDATION), I would choose that for BAR. >> >> After thinking about it a bit - USE(COCOA) (or for that matter even >> PLATFORM(COCOA)) might be better as a first cut. Since it's not supposed to >> exist at all long term, it makes for an easy number to drive to zero. >> USE(FOUNDATION) will mix both correct and incorrect uses so it will be >> harder to drive the mistaken applications to zero. >> >> Regards, >> Maciej >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >> > > I'm new here, so sorry if I’m intruding since I don’t have much of a > stake in this outcome, but USE(COCOA) then seems to imply to me that > you need to also have a USE(COCOATOUCH). It so, then maybe it should > be AppKit vs. UIKit instead for more clarity.
Here Cocoa implies both Cocoa and Cocoa Touch. > There is another potential case where you have an Obj-C framework > environment that is not Apple’s. I’ll cite GNUStep and Apportable as > two cases. The former provides a Cocoa (AppKit) compatible > implementation but tends to run on Linux or Windows. The latter > provides a UIKit compatible implementation and tends to run on > Android. There is not port of WebKit for GNUStep. Consequently, it does not impact design decisions. > This asks the question, do you really mean Mac vs. iOS, or AppKit vs. > UIKit, or something else? Something else :) The name suggested here is for all the code that is common between OS X and iOS, but not related to the Darwin Kernel. IMHO, COCOA is an improvement over PLATFORM(MAC). Benjamin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
