Re: OMS, FreeMIDI and Carbon...
Re: OMS, FreeMIDI and Carbon...
- Subject: Re: OMS, FreeMIDI and Carbon...
- From: Jim Wintermyre <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:51:18 -0800
>> How to call frameworks from CFM apps has been discussed at some length on
this list. Curiously the question keeps coming up anyway.
Well, it's curious how one's memory turns to mush. Kurt's note was a big
help, and I would point others with this redundant question in the direction
of Matt Ingall's very detailed message of 6/26/02, 10:50 a.m. Still, it may
be best just to do a separate Mach-0 version for OSX, as several writers
> have proposed.
So I guess you did jump through the frameworks-from-CFM hoops. But I guess
you decided it wasn't so hard after all. I decided against it myself,
because it is simply more trouble than having 2 separate apps, and I have
lots of other things to do!
You're confusing Carbon (an API) with CFM and Mach-O (runtime
architectures). You can build Carbon apps for CFM *or* Mach-O on OS
X. A CFM Carbon app will run on both OX X and OS 9, a Mach-O Carbon
app will only run on OS X. A Mach-O Carbon app can call Mach-O
routines directly, a CFM Carbon app has to jump through hoops to call
Mach-O routines (or use Eric Grant's MachOLib postlinker).
If you've already converted your code to Carbon, then one approach
might be what Jeff suggests, which would still be two separate apps -
a Mach-O Carbon build for OS X that calls OS X MIDI routines
directly, and a CFM Carbon build for OS 9 that jumps through the
required hoops to call OMS. Depending on the extent of the changes
required to Carbonize your codebase, this might be easier than
maintaining a separate InterfaceLib-based version of the code.
Jim
_______________________________________________
coreaudio-api mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/coreaudio-api
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.