Re: gen_bridge_metadata
Re: gen_bridge_metadata
- Subject: Re: gen_bridge_metadata
- From: Philip Aker <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:36:32 -0800
On 2007-12-17, at 08:46:30, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
Thirdly, why is the XML being generated from the obsolete DTD
format instead of an XML Schema? Specifically to use XML Schema
data-types and take advantage of the ability to pre-define a lot
of native Mac OS X types in the .xsd (the basic .plist types e.g.).
gen_bridge_metadata in the BridgeSupport repository may be a later
version.
Specifically which file at which repository?
The Python frameworks in Leopard show that the version of its
generated .bridgesupport files is 1.0.
How is it that the documentation states that the only possible value
for the version is 1.0", and Python shows 1.0, but all
the .bridgesupport files in the system show 0.9?
If you have specific improvements that you would like to see,
please file bugs.
The script is fairly minimal.
I'd like to know a couple of things about the gen_bridge_metadata
tool.
Firstly, is the correct version is being distributed with Leopard?
The documentation suggests it must be 1.0, but I get "0.9" and
futhermore the .bridgesupport files show their XML version to be
"0.9".
Here's what the documentation states:
The signatures element
signatures is the top-level, or root, element of a BridgeSupport
XML file.
Mandatory attributes:
version
The version number of the BridgeSupport format.
The only possible value is ``1.0'' which means the format
delivered with Mac OS X 10.5.
Secondly, where is the documentation for the 'type' and 'type64'
attributes? For instance in struct and constant elements I'm
presented with:
<constant name='kCFCopyStringBagCallBacks'
declared_type='CFBagCallBacks' type='{_CFBagCallBacks=i^?^?^?^?
^?}' type64='{_CFBagCallBacks=q^?^?^?^?^?}' const='true'/>
<struct name='CFRange'
type='{_CFRange="location"i"length"i}'
type64='{_CFRange="location"q"length"q}'>
It's possible to make guess for some of these but that seems like
a dubious way to proceed. Or is this the format of this 0.9 beta
version and the 1.0 version generates XML which is more convenient
to parse? Seems to me that if one can generate an attribute value
with stuff like ""i"" in it, then it would be just as
easy (and much more convenient for end users like me) to generate
a 'field' sub-element with attributes like 'name', 'type',
'type64', etc.
Thirdly, why is the XML being generated from the obsolete DTD
format instead of an XML Schema? Specifically to use XML Schema
data-types and take advantage of the ability to pre-define a lot
of native Mac OS X types in the .xsd (the basic .plist types e.g.).
Philip Aker
echo email@hidden@nl | tr a-z@. p-za-o.@
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden