> 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
> 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
> 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.
Well, the problem is that the demand has been trickling in. While it
hasn't been overwhelming, it was worth looking into. From a
build/packaging perspective, to build such a framework is a post-build
process where we would create the framework structure using the files
we just built. The fact that Subversion is a command line app doesn't
mean it's not worthy of being a framework. Anything that wants to
package its resources to allow for multiple versions installed at the
same time and/or the ability to build against that application is
candidate for a framework.
> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
> seem to claim that is not the way to go.
Yeah, I never noticed that before. I like the idea of an Umbrella
Framework but if it's discouraged, we can figure something else out.
Possibly just breaking all delivered deps as its own framework. This
is just an idea at this stage. I want to see what others thought. If
we believe this is worthy of our time, the details can be worked out.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:01:27 CEST