PowerPlant X & Mach-O

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by egusene » Wed, 15 Sep 2004 06:45:24


I am pretty sure the answer to my first question is YES, but I do not
know the answer to my second question.

Is the whole of PowerPlant X Mach-O only?
If yes, why?
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by Isaac Wank » Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:19:54

In article <1gk2bfa.b8hy6ystvqqaN% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,



Yes, and it requires Mac OS X 10.2 and later.


A lot of the PPx view system depends on HIViews and composited windows.
Apple is no longer providing CFM/PEF interfaces to their new and future
APIs and it would be much more work for Metrowerks to keep an updated
bridge between the two architectures.

--
Isaac *** erl
Metrowerks

 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by Sean McBri » Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:25:38

In article <1gk2bfa.b8hy6ystvqqaN% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,



Because its for OS X only? :)
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by egusene » Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:18:08


But if we load the framework(s) used by PowerPlant X manually (using the
CFMLateImport code from Apple), then those routines become available in
CFM. This appears to work with the PPX document stationary project and
allows one to build and run it. That may be a simple example, though.
Are there any other problems, apart from the framework-only routines?
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by egusene » Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:04:31


I would be happy to send the CW project folder so others can see PPx
working under CFM.

It will require that you install the 10.3 SDK form the MacOS X Xcode
Tools v 1.5.

I am also using CW Pro 9.3
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by Isaac Wank » Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:14:19

In article <1gk3x05.sxg1d8q9pxa6N% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,





Not that I know of, but I've never tried running PPx under CFM/PEF.

--
Isaac *** erl
Metrowerks
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by egusene » Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:50:46


Then, I am confused...

On what basis did you claim that PPx was Mach-O only?
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by Isaac Wank » Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:09:44

In article <1gk46tr.9aypolca6tqaN% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,







What I'm saying is that PPx has only been designed to work under Mach-O.
Metrowerks has not put any effort into getting PPx to work under
CFM/PEF. It sounds like you have a working solution of loading the
Mach-O functions at runtime, but since Metrowerks hasn't tested this
setup, we don't know if there are any other problems you will run into.

--
Isaac *** erl
Metrowerks
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by egusene » Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:59:10


Understood. Thank you.
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by bolsing » Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:48:30


You have to re-write your code to use PPx. Why would you re-write code and still
target the old, no longer recommended CFM? I'm curious.
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by egDfAusene » Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:31:56


Same reason for every potential decision such as this one...legacy code
and projects and the need to continue releasing improved software.

--
== Eric Gorr ========= http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ========= ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like *** , are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
 
 
 

PowerPlant X & Mach-O

Post by bolsing » Sat, 18 Sep 2004 13:50:11


But you are re-writing and modernizing your code to use PPx. Why not re-write
and modernize and use Mach-O? The only change there is the linker you use.
Legacy code probably can't call PPx, since it is C++. You don't share C++
interfaces across libraries, do you?