keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (09/09/89)
Hello, folks,
MacApp 2.0b9 has been available from APDA for about a month now. Some of you
have been playing around with, some of you are still using MacApp 2.0b5, and
probably eveve some are still using 1.1. Now there's even the Think C Class
libraries to hack around with.
MacApp 2.0b9 is the last release of MacApp before we go final with 2.0. After
that, we'll be working full steam ahead on the next version of MacApp. What
I'd like to know is what people would like to see in it. Any good ideas?
Anything is fair game, from the addition of a new global variable to a totally
new class structure. Some ideas that we've had are:
- New TDocument structure. People have commented that it isn't
general enough to handle multi-file documents such as databases
- New TDialog structure. There are many limitations in the current
implementation that are there solely for emulation of the Toolbox
Dialog Manager. Some of these limitations are ludicrous and don't
need to be kept.
- New Printing architecture. The current method is not very flexible.
It seems to only want to support printing one main view and its
subview, rather than multiple parallel views.
- A more MacLike debugger. This command line thing has got to go!
- An extended debugger. More commands. What would you like?
- Support for 7.0, 32-bit Color QuickDraw. What specifically would
people like to see here???
- More base classes or building blocks? How about a TBitMapView? How
about some CS101 classes (TStack, TQueue, TBubbleSortList, TQuick
SortList, TDataCompressor, whatever)?
- A Windows menu mechanism?
- A robust message passing system (IMC? Inter method communication?)
I'm thinking of a more flexible mechanism than fNextHandler chains.
This could allow for different views to talk to each other, as well
as other bennies.
- More view attributes. Extensions to the existing SizeDeterminers as
well as adding LocationDeterminers.
Please note that all of these are just IDEAS! None of what I've listed above
is to be construed as work in progress, mostly because I've thought of about
half of them just now. What I'm really looking for are your comments on the
viability/usefulness of the above list, as well as a massive outflow of your
own ideas.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support
INTERNET: keith@apple.com
UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith
"Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusionsjnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (09/09/89)
In article <34594@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > Hello, folks, MacApp 2.0b9 is the last release of MacApp before we go final with 2.0. After that, we'll be working full steam ahead on the next version of MacApp. What I'd like to know is what people would like to see in it. Any good ideas? Anything is fair game, from the addition of a new global variable to a totally new class structure. Some ideas that we've had are: Well, for one, NO ANNUAL LICENSING FEE would be nice. Then I might actually buy it. Sorry, but this is one "software development tax" that really irks me. v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
viking@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Jon W. Backstrom) (09/09/89)
In article <3901@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> jnh@ecemwl.UUCP (Joseph N. Hall) writes: >In article <34594@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >> >>Hello, folks, >>MacApp 2.0b9 is the last release of MacApp before we go final with 2.0. After >>that, we'll be working full steam ahead on the next version of MacApp. What >>I'd like to know is what people would like to see in it. Any good ideas? >> >Well, for one, NO ANNUAL LICENSING FEE would be nice. Then I might actually >buy it. > >Sorry, but this is one "software development tax" that really irks me. Isn't the licensing fee required only if you *sell* your program? If so, it's still a pain for perspective MacApp programmers, but I would hope you aren't tagged for an annual fee just to *use* MacApp. On a similar subject, what are the licensing rules for giving away a copy of MIDI Manager and PatchBay with your freeware utility? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon W. Backstrom "Yah sure...we gonna have fun, you bet!" Institute for Digital Arts P.O. Box 176 Internet: viking@silver.bacs.indiana.edu Bloomington, IN 47402-0176 UUCP: {ames,rutgers,att}!iuvax!silver!viking -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (09/11/89)
In article <25749@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> viking@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Jon W. Backstrom) writes: >In article <3901@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> jnh@ecemwl.UUCP (Joseph N. Hall) writes: [I said, I don't like MacApp's $100/yr licensing fee] >>Sorry, but this is one "software development tax" that really irks me. > >Isn't the licensing fee required only if you *sell* your program? If >so, it's still a pain for perspective MacApp programmers, but I would >hope you aren't tagged for an annual fee just to *use* MacApp. Well, no, the fee doesn't apply if you're just "using" MacApp, but unless you just think it's a great videogame, the licensing fee will get you sooner or later. It applies if you distribute (even if it's free) a program that uses MacApp. v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.