🚀 go-pugleaf

Isaac Wankerl <iwankerl@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <1gk3x05.sxg1d8q9pxa6N%egusenet@verizon.net>,
>  egusenet@verizon.net (Eric) wrote:
> 
> > Isaac Wankerl <iwankerl@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1gk2bfa.b8hy6ystvqqaN%egusenet@verizon.net>,
> > >  egusenet@verizon.net (Eric) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 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?
> > > 
> > > Yes, and it requires Mac OS X 10.2 and later.
> > > 
> > > > If yes, why?
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> Not that I know of, but I've never tried running PPx under CFM/PEF.

Then, I am confused...

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