Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>...
> I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
> framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
> were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen

Um... that seems like false logic. If we package it as a Framework,
*then* applications can start to use it.

If we never package it as a Framework, then applications will *never*
be able to use it (easily).

Some time sunk into creating a Framework, in return for saving a lot
of downstream users the time to use stuff right from our build? That
seems like a win to me.

> unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
> provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest

"provided by CollabNet" ... um... so? What about binaries provided by others?

> that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
> be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
> then it is unneeded overhead.
>
> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
> seem to claim that is not the way to go.

Hmm? Was Jeremy suggesting an Umbrella? It sounded like just one
Framework Kinda unclear here, but I don't see how providing more
options to downstream users can be a Bad Thing.

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-07 15:59:36 CEST