Re: Cocoa stripping resource forks: does Jaguar fix?
Re: Cocoa stripping resource forks: does Jaguar fix?
- Subject: Re: Cocoa stripping resource forks: does Jaguar fix?
- From: Marcel Weiher <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:20:16 +0200
On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, at 05:49 Uhr, Kevin Elliott wrote:
posix is portable API
Indeed. Where did you read that OSX was posix compliant?
Apple has said repeatedly that their goal is to be POSIX compliant (or
as close as possible), but without actual formal certification.
Where did you
read that apple was planning on becoming so?
Try "Apple posix compliance" in google and see for yourself. One
example:
" On top of that, Apples Mac OS X is a POSIX compliant multi-threaded
OS, "
http://www.apple.com/scitech/research/hiperformance/
In point of fact, apple has
stated numerous times on the darwin dev lists that posix compliance is
_NOT_
a goal.
The last time I checked, POSIX certification was not a goal.
Cocoa should be a portable API
I'm afraid Apple disagrees with you, and, as they're the ones that wrote
Cocoa, they get to decide. I personally could not care less if cocoa is
portable. I have no particular desire to write windows software. I
want a
great framework for MacOSX. The problems with resource fork
destruction is
currently a big gaping hole that keeps cocoa from being a great
framework
for OSX.
Actually, since Apple also recommends not using resource forks any
longer, and Cocoa is for new developments, this would seem to be less of
a problem than you make it to be.
But who am I to argue with a bona-fide-self-proclaimed jedi knight?
Marcel
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.