xibs working OK?

  • Other than sporadic mentions of problems hither and thither, I don't
    see anyone complaining about using .xib (vs .nib) format much.

    Does that mean they're safe to use? Any other experiences?

    Thanks &
    Cheers!
    --Chris Ryland / Em Software, Inc. / www.emsoftware.com
  • On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:27 PM, Chris Ryland wrote:

    > Other than sporadic mentions of problems hither and thither, I don't
    > see anyone complaining about using .xib (vs .nib) format much.

    Hey Chris -

    A NIB 3.0 file is actually just a NIB 2.x file with a XIB file
    embedded. So, if you've been using NIB 3.0, and you're afraid there
    will be risks associated with XIB files, this information should help
    dispel that worry.

    Here's some pertinent info from the AppKit release notes.

    Leopard developer tools includes a new version of Interface Builder
    (IB). IB 3.0 has a redesigned interface, a much improved integration
    with Xcode, and ability to access many more AppKit features in your
    nib files than before.

    IB 3.0 supports three file formats. The 2.x file format is same file
    format that's been in use in Interface Builder previously. It can be
    edited by IB 2.0, and is deployable on earlier versions of Mac OS X.
    The 2.x file format does not support some new features of IB, such as
    the ability to edit custom cell subclasses and toolbars. The 3.x file
    format supports all the new features, is also deployable on earlier
    versions of Mac OS X, but can only be edited with IB 3.0. IB 3.0 also
    supports a textual, human-readable format called the "xib" format.
    This format is equivalent to the 3.x format, but it's more SCM-
    friendly. It is compiled down to a 3.x file at build time.

    For editing and building your project on Leopard only, we recommend
    the xib format, since it provides the best development time
    experience. If you need to build your project on Tiger, but edit your
    nibs on Leopard only, then you can use the 3.x format. Finally, if you
    wish to be able to continue to edit your nib files on Tiger, you can
    stick to the 2.x format. In all these cases, the files can be deployed
    on Tiger, but some features supported by IB 3.0 may not work on the
    earlier systems. IB has facilities to warn you in those cases.

    Good Luck -
    Jon Hess

    >
    >
    > Does that mean they're safe to use? Any other experiences?
    >
    > Thanks &
    > Cheers!
    > --Chris Ryland / Em Software, Inc. / www.emsoftware.com
  • On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Chris Ryland <cpr...> wrote:
    > Other than sporadic mentions of problems hither and thither, I don't
    > see anyone complaining about using .xib (vs .nib) format much.
    >
    > Does that mean they're safe to use? Any other experiences?
    >

    I've found they're better than nibs, but still kinda a pain in the ass
    for source control.  Interface Builder has a tendency of changing all
    the ids throughout the xml if you so much as breath on the xib, and
    there's this huge chunk of unintelligible data at the end of the xib
    that contains god knows what.  It's an improvement on scattering the
    changes throughout 3 opaque files, though.
previous month february 2008 next month
MTWTFSS
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29    
Go to today