Re: [Cocoa-sharp] how can i integrate cocoa# into xcode
Manuel de la Pena
Seems that we have some communication problems at cocoa-sharp... (big
ones I'd say) We have two different mailing lists :
cocoa...@lists.ximian.com
cocoa-s...@googlegroups.com
I really don't understand the mailing list situation:
As in other project we have a dev and non-dev group, but clearly cocoa
should not have a non-dev group. Think about it, we have evolution and
evolution-dev. The evolution one is for the evolution users while
evolution-dev is for the developers, but in our case we have
developers in both sides. Do we really want the non-dev one since
cocoa is a library anyway. On top of this we are having discussions
about similar things in both and I think things are getting out f hand.
On the google one a couple of us have been talking about how to write
some proper documentation, I have offer to use my server to held the
project (500 gb per moth bandwidth etc.. ) and I don't mind paying
that. But we seriously have to sort out the group!!!!
I know that there is people that want to help the group and work a lot
but we first have to fix all the problems we have and centralize all
the info of the project. We have potential coders with the skills but
when they see this situation they get scared.
We need to discuss a solution... please replay to both mailing lists
so everyone reads it until we decide which one to use.
Cheers,
Manuel
PS: For the time being I recommend everyone to read both.
PS 2: I've also posted this at the mono lists to get some help from
our big brothers at mono, I'm sure they can give us a hand.
On 18/01/2008, at 18:08, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Am 18.01.2008 um 17:32 schrieb marc hoffman:
>
>> I'd love to help out if i can. I've already looked into getting some
>> of this
>> stuff working in Xcode 3 a while back but iirc it failed on the
>> langspec, and i
>> couldn't figure out what part it didn't like anymore :(. If you have
>> anything
>> that works better than what's in SVN now, i'd love to have a look.
>
> I'm still at the stage that I don't see anything of what I've written
> in Xcode, no new menu item.
>
>> Out of curiosity: are you baisn gyour work on any official or semi-
>> official
>> documentation that might be out there (i couldn’t find any on ADC),
>> or are you
>> too just doing this by trial-and-error and the few unofficial infos
>> that Google
>> serves up (such as http://maxao.free.fr/xcode-plugin-interface/index.html)?
>
> I am not aware of any documentation other than Damien's, and that was
> not even up-to-date for 2.3. Moreover I see his headers for native
> ObjC code as problematic (they are GPL, thus any code derived from it
> becomes GPL while Xcode is not GPL; depending on interpretations, this
> can be regarded as violation) and instead had a BSD-ish plugin based
> on Cocoa-sharq; the accompanying spec files were integrated with
> bridged ObjC code, and ObjC is the part we can pretty much dump first
> when a new version is out... I used a managed framework to inspect the
> available classes, their methods and then probed all interesting
> parameters, and in the end some trial-and-error. I'd like to avoid
> that work for now!
>
> So currently I am trying to deploy my draft spec files to /Developer/
> Library/Xcode/Specifications but I'm not sure if they are even being
> picked up there, there are only xctxtmacro files and an xcplugin
> there. (it would've been handy)
>
> There are some files in /Developer/Library/PrivateFrameworks/
> DevToolsCore.framework/Resources that look the same as in Xcode 2.4
> (pb*spec). XcodeEdit.Framework has differing "xclangspec" files.
> ASKPlugin uses an xcspec file containing an old-style language
> definition (referring to a custom native scanner).
> Looking at the existing local Xcode files is the closest thing to
> "documentation" I currently have.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Cocoa-sharp mailing list
> Cocoa...@lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-sharp
Leauki
> As in other project we have a dev and non-dev group, but clearly cocoa
> should not have a non-dev group. Think about it, we have evolution and
> evolution-dev. The evolution one is for the evolution users while
> evolution-dev is for the developers, but in our case we have
> developers in both sides. Do we really want the non-dev one since
> cocoa is a library anyway. On top of this we are having discussions
> about similar things in both and I think things are getting out f hand.
based on CocoaSharp while CocoaSharp developers are developers who
work on CocoaSharp itself?
I see your point, but I don't know why they made the distinction.
Perhaps that is why.
> On the google one a couple of us have been talking about how to write
> some proper documentation, I have offer to use my server to held the
> project (500 gb per moth bandwidth etc.. ) and I don't mind paying
> that. But we seriously have to sort out the group!!!!
I have some stuff for the site, once it gets started.
> I know that there is people that want to help the group and work a lot
> but we first have to fix all the problems we have and centralize all
> the info of the project. We have potential coders with the skills but
> when they see this situation they get scared.
am working on beginner's how-to docs, for what it's worth. I can't
contribute to CocoaSharp itself (I gave two reasons to some readers
here), but I want to use CocoaSharp and do what I can do to help.
I have testing experience, am familiar with Visual Studio and Xcode,
and use Macs at home and Windows at work, hence feel at home with
CocoaSharp.
BTW, I'm in Dublin, Ireland.
> We need to discuss a solution... please replay to both mailing lists
> so everyone reads it until we decide which one to use.
the groups from work.
Manuel de la Pena
really now how, but we should all agree to use just one mailing list,
organize a team and start trying to get things started step by step.
On 18/01/2008, at 22:13, marc hoffman wrote:
>> oh boy - last month (or so) i was complaining about cocoa-sharp and
>> mono-osx being one too many lists for this (currently) narrow
>> field. now we have a third that's apparently nt mentioned anywhere
>> on the website? that's bad.
>
> oh wait. cocoa-sharp-dev is that google group thing. oops. ;)
>
> anywho, the point remains, imho this needs to be consolidated, coz
> otherwise half of our (potential) contributors miss the other half...
>
> --
> marc hoffman
>
> RemObjects Software
> The Infrastructure Company
> http://www.remobjects.com
mh
Andreas,
>> For the goal of consolidation maybe this will help. Here is a
>> summary of
>> all the resources that Cocoa# is directly and indirectly using:
>>
>> *Projects*
>> CocoaSharp
>> CSharp Plugin for Xcode
>> Mono on OSX
>
> Some more related projects are:
>
> cocoa-sharq (my rewrite forked in 2006)
does it make sense re-merging these two, or abandoning one or the
other? Can you give a brief summary or lins to info on whats different
in Cocoa-Sharq vs Cocoa#?
> objc-sharp (another similar project by Geoff at Mono)
> Dumbarton (contributed by imeem to Mono)
Ok - since Mono SVN is obviously tricky to grant to wide range of
people, how about we set up *one* "experimental/work" SVN somewhere,
where "anyone" can get access to, with a handful of dedicated people
reviewing those changes regularly and migrating them back to the
"real" Mono repo? Ideally, *any* development should be moved to the
"work" repository, as to avid conflicts with changes happenng directly
in Mono?
i could offer to provide a public SVN one of our servers for this, for
all the project we want (if we wanna move away from google).
>> *Mailing lists*
>> cocoa...@lists.ximain.com
>> cocoa-s...@googlegroups.com
>> mono...@lists.ximian.com
i would recommend closing the google, and putting appropriate infos on
the google page so people *unmistakably* know that they are looking at
outdated stuff and should go elsewhere.
the same would apply to the old cocasharp.org page. right now, when
you look at it your first impression is that this *IS* still the
official home, and the project is just abandoned. you need to dig a
while to find a link to google.
again, i could offer to host a proper MediaWiki on our servers for
this, if we do want to maintain a more easily editable resource apart
from the official project-mono.cm page.
in either case, we need to make sure that all three currently existing
urls (.org, mono and google) maske it absolutely clear where to go for
the party.
for the mailing lists, i suggest keeping coca-sharp and mono-osx, but
make it VERY obvious everywhere that these lists are mentioned that
both exist and that, at this stage, we recommend everyone to subscribe
to both?
we should definitely close the google list, as its imho to
inaccessible.
>> *Wikis*
>> http://cocoasharp.org
>> http://mono-project.com/CocoaSharp and http://mono-project.com/CSharpPlugin
>> http://code.google.com/p/cocoa-sharp-dev/
>>
>> *SVN*
>> mono-cvs.ximian.com/source/trunk/cocoa-sharp
>> https://cocoa-sharp-dev.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/csharpxcodeplugin
>>
>> The reason some stuff was moved to google was so that the community
>> could
>> better control svn/wiki access. However, that does not seem to have
>> worked
>> as well as hoped. I am all for moving things back to Mono resources so
>> Cocoa# can keep close ties to Mono. Now that Mono has committed to
>> supporting OSX more that may be a good idea.
>>
>> Thoughts?
i think either'd be fine, and i can see obvious advantages to both
(easy commit access for a broader and ore active team vs. avoiding of
duplication)
> Some consolidation of the various resources would indeed be good.
>
> I'd assume there is no -dev and no-dev split between the mailing lists
> (and I agree that wouldn't make sense), cocoa-sharp-dev is simply the
> name of the Google project. It would make sense to decide upon which
> to use for Cocoa# development and to document that.
> But please don't merge Cocoa# *code review* into Mono-osx.
agreed, id suggest to keep the two ximian lists, with the notes above.
> The problem is who moved to Google and who didn't. I don't see
> Kangaroo, Dru, Urs on your group, neither am I or some others that
> contributed at some earlier point. So factually cocoa-sharp-dev is
> another fork even though the code itself still appears to be in Mono's
> trunk.
>
> I believe to really make Cocoa a first-class Mono citizen, a separate
> project, like Google Code, would be a better place for now as it'll be
> easier for people to sign up and get SVN access and update pages, and
> to stay ahead of Mono's release cycle. Compare Geoff's new SWF project
> where he has to provide updates and bugfixes for the released Mono
> version through his personal blog that only few people know about.
good point, yes. however, ideally such bugfixes could also be
mentioned on the relevant Mono wiki pages (which right now, i our case
are severely outdated and no-one ooks at for those reasons - but that
can be changed. if people knew that mono-project.com/CocoaSharp had up
to ate infos (rather than being 2 years old), they'd check there.
> If there's renewed interest in actively working on the ObjC bridge I'd
> gladly join the effort over at Google. That code hasn't been touched
> since early 2006 when Geoff picked up parts of my improvements.
>
> For my C# plugin however I'd rather not host that at any Cocoa#
> project. C# syntax coloring is one thing, integration of the various
> compilers another and templates for specific projects or file types
> yet another.
Maybe we need one "work" repository for all these OSX related efforts,
not just Cocoa# - and your Xcode plugin would fit in there as well? i
certainly wold appreciate having that in some SVN, as i wanna wokr on
getting Chrome integrated into XC3 as well, and ideally we should be
able to work together to create something language-agnostic as a base,
that wll work for C# and Chrome (and VB and whomever else)?
(ftr, ths reply will not show on cocoa-sharp-dev as google doesn't
allow to subscribe from non-gmail addresses. one more reason, imho, to
get rid of google)