Re: what's difference and relationship between CoreFoundation and Fou ndation framework
Re: what's difference and relationship between CoreFoundation and Fou ndation framework
- Subject: Re: what's difference and relationship between CoreFoundation and Fou ndation framework
- From: Marcel Weiher <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:19:59 +0200
On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 06:25 PM, Chad Jones wrote:
Sorry, I mis-spoke myself here. So i'll reiterate.
Alas, still not correct, sorry.
The majority of Carbon developers want a single binary as their
output. That single binary they intend to work on both OS9 and OSX.
Now while applications can link with carbon and other frameworks in OSX
its not reasonable in the majority of cases to create a unified binary
which contains several non-Carbon elements such as Foundation.
Yes, OS9 availability is currently an issue, though one of the free
Foundations probably could be ported.
As for the command-line comment some command line tools (specifically
daemon processes) which can't make use of AppKit because of its heavy
dependency on the WindowServer (regardless of if graphics are being
used).
Yes, but Foundation != AppKit.
Because daemon processes live across logout and WindowServer doesn't,
AppKit calls stop working as the daemon crosses a logout boundary.
Yes, AppKit calls. Not Foundation calls.
In most instances this will not be the case for CF calls as they
have little dependency on the window server in compairison to their
Foundation counterparts.
It is also not the case for Foundation. The situation is exactly the
same as for CoreFoundation.
So overall while the differences between CF and Foundation are present
they are actually fairly minor.
True.
Really the main difference is that CF depends on less of the system
than Foundation does
The only difference is the reliance on the Objective-C runtime, unless
things have changed. What you are saying is true for the AppKit.
Marcel