| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
code101
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject: Other than Java? |
|
| Is there any chance of making neooffice a full OS-X native Coaca based app? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Baggypants
Councilperson
Joined: Nov 27, 2005
Posts: 108
Location: Salford, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
yes
I'm a great proponent of answering the direct quiestion, not the implied one |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jakeOSX
Ninja
Joined: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 1373
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
the level of effort that would entail is documented throughout this forum.
despite not using objective C, java 1.4 is in fact cocoa. i would wager that when patrick is done you would never know it isn't an objective C program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjmckenzie51
The Anomaly
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: Other than Java? |
|
| code101 wrote: | | Is there any chance of making neooffice a full OS-X native Coaca based app? |
That was tried a long time ago and the effort was abandoned in favor of Carbon/Java. It was discovered that the VCL part of OpenOffice was incompatible with Cocoa and to port OpenOffice to Cocoa would require a partial rewrite of the application to replace VCL with code that would be compatible with Cocoa. A new effort has been started (but no results yet) to port OpenOffice 2.0 to Cocoa vice using the X11 windowing system.
Their effort as well as NeoOffice 2.0 will require the use of Java because of the way that OpenOffice was developed. There will never be a completely Java-Free version of either.
James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
The other irony is that using Cocoa right now is actually worse than using Java...Cocoa really wants the world to be written in Objective-C and UNO wants none of it 
Search around and you'll see why it's a waste of time. Cocoa is not the framework to use when one is trying to make cross-platform widget sets. Apple even admits this in their online documentatin and mentions Carbon is the better option.
Want proof?
Look at how long the 1.4 Java VM *sucked* for GUI apps after it moved to Cocoa from Carbon. This is a primary motivator for why we stuck with 1.3 for so long. If Apple themselves takes years to get it right, what does that tell you?
I have no empathy for end users who have been tricked by the Steve Jobs/Apple Reality Distortion Field surrounding Cocoa.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjmckenzie51
The Anomaly
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
| OPENSTEP wrote: | | The other irony is that using Cocoa right now is actually worse than using Java...Cocoa really wants the world to be written in Objective-C and UNO wants none of it |
Ed:
I've also read that Cocoa does not like VCL, the interface that OpenOffice uses. Carbon on the other hand, adapts quite well. If/when OpenOffice changes to a different interface (I've heard XUL) this might/might not change.
However, the effort to convert to Cocoa is massive and will make OpenOffice MacOSX incompatible (at least at the interface level) from the other versions of OpenOffice. NeoOffice's methods of wrapping a Carbon framework around the interface presented by OpenOffice is much easier and uses much less resources. Of course, upgrading to Java 1.4.2 is going to introduce more Cocoa code and use Objective-C more, but it is not going to change the basic core of the interface and that is Carbon/Java.
James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
You read it, and I probably wrote it. Here's the lowdown:
Carbon API = Functional
Cocoa API = Framework
VCL+SVX = Functional
Which is the better match?
ed <--- solved it with a Drogan's decoder wheel I found in a box of lucky charms |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
