Re: [xmlvm-users] UIViewAnimationDelegate is broken

[Arno P. <ar...@pu...>]

On 02/23/2012 11:21 AM, Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote:
>
> 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
> :)

Ideally it would be best to maintain the Objective-C backend while 
pushing the new C backend. I agree that it is not optimal that there are 
problems with the Objective-C backend before we can finally move over to 
the C backend. However, it is also a sad reality that we have extremely 
limited resources and simply don't have any spare cycles to invest into 
something that will soon be retired. Since you don't use the C backend 
you might want to stay with revision 2080.

Arno