Re: [xmlvm-users] UIViewAnimationDelegate is broken

[Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...>]

On 23 Φεβ 2012, at 6:23 μ.μ., Paul Poley wrote:

> Yes, that's correct.  We had a discussion regarding protocols at the time, and it was decided to use interfaces, which I believe is the right decision.  There were a few topics, but the main one was the difficultly of implementation.  In the end, using Java interfaces with Obj-C protocols involved using wrapper instances to invoke the correct Java methods.
> 
> Architecturally, I do not believe we should change back to abstract classes.  Additionally, I have found that the C version of XMLVM has exceeded the Obj-C version.  While it is unfortunate that forward progress has broken that part of the Obj-C version of XMLVM, I am not sure it is worth it to spend time on the Obj-C version, which I view as legacy.  To me that means that some prior projects may use the Obj-C version, but continued support isn't necessary.  Released projects should be dependent on fixed source code, so the evolution of XMLVM shouldn't affect them.  I certainly wouldn't object if someone wanted to provide an update though, and I would be happy to give some pointers.
> 
> I understand that you are still invested in the Obj-C version, so I'm sure we'll have a difference of opinion & I'd like to hear your point of view as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul


First of all, I don't mind whether it's better to use interfaces or abstract classes.
Everything is fine with me.

I agree that C is the future, but unfortunately it's not the present (yet). It is far form complete and, although ObjC is far from being optimized, I believe it's not time yet to drop support for it.
This time will come, only when the C backend is at least as feature-full as the ObjC backend.

I don't care if the backend will be C, or ObjC or any other exotic implementation. I do care though, if a project is able to run under revision 2079 (even with legacy ObjC), and doesn't run with 2080, with either backends.

Thanks, too 
:)