Thread View: comp.sys.mac.programmer.codewarrior
12 messages
12 total messages
Started by Eric
Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:45
PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Eric
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:45
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:45
5 lines
983 bytes
983 bytes
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?
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Isaac Wankerl
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:19
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:19
20 lines
1895 bytes
1895 bytes
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. -- Isaac Wankerl Metrowerks
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Sean McBride
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:25
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 04:25
6 lines
976 bytes
976 bytes
In article <1gk2bfa.b8hy6ystvqqaN%egusenet@verizon.net>, egusenet@verizon.net (Eric) wrote: > If yes, why? Because its for OS X only? :)
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Eric
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:18
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:18
24 lines
1973 bytes
1973 bytes
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?
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Eric
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:04
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:04
15 lines
1578 bytes
1578 bytes
Eric <egusenet@verizon.net> wrote: > 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? 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
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Isaac Wankerl
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:14
33 lines
2620 bytes
2620 bytes
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. -- Isaac Wankerl Metrowerks
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Eric
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:50
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:50
35 lines
2486 bytes
2486 bytes
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?
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Isaac Wankerl
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:09
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:09
48 lines
3428 bytes
3428 bytes
In article <1gk46tr.9aypolca6tqaN%egusenet@verizon.net>, egusenet@verizon.net (Eric) wrote: > 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? 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 Wankerl Metrowerks
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Eric
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:59
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:59
9 lines
1540 bytes
1540 bytes
Isaac Wankerl <iwankerl@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Understood. Thank you.
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: bolsinga
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:48
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:48
10 lines
1736 bytes
1736 bytes
Eric wrote: >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. 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.
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: Eric
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:31
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:31
21 lines
1950 bytes
1950 bytes
<bolsinga@hotmail.com> wrote: > Eric wrote: > > >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. > > 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. 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.ericgorr.net ========= ICQ:9293199 === "Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu == Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
Re: PowerPlant X & Mach-O
Author: bolsinga
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:50
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:50
12 lines
2078 bytes
2078 bytes
Eric wrote: >> 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. > >Same reason for every potential decision such as this one...legacy code >and projects and the need to continue releasing improved software. 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?
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads