Re: libgnustep-base split proposal

[Helge Hess]

On 19. Feb 2006, at 08:35 Uhr, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> For me, distributed objects are one of the 'killer' features of the  
> base
> library and the desire to use DO is perhaps the main reason I started
> GNUstep development!
> There do seem to be some people who just hate daemons, but even
> if you hate daemons that's no reason to get rid of DO since you can
> use it without them.

Well, we (SOPE/OGo) don't need DO but I don't care to have an NSPort  
class linked into my binary either. Of course the binary should not  
attempt to connect the daemons or setup the DO system unless I  
actually use it.
I suppose this is already true for gstep-base.

> However ... either configure-time or run-time options makes more
> sense to me than a splitup.

Configure-time makes red lights go on, but otherwise I agree :-)

> 3. NSUserDefaults
>
> As I already mentioned, this already copes with read-only database,  
> so it would
> be easy to continue using it without any external files.  Major  
> restucturing to
> avoid using it therefore seems very counterproductive.

The only thing we have here in SOPE is that NSUserDefaults looks for  
its database in $HOME instead of $GNUSTEP_USER_DIR if the latter is  
not set.

> 5. NSBundle
>
> I'm not sure what the perceived problem is here.

One feature I would like to see in NSBundle is the ability to load  
a .so module w/o any resources since otherwise one needs to rebuild a  
lot of API to load plain modules. But thats an additional feature,  
not a bug :-)

Greets,
  Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org