 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Programming / CodeWarrior / January 2006Photoshop Plug-in development
I'm in a pickle. I'm trying to launch into the process of developing a Photoshop plug-in using the latest version of the Photoshop SDK from Adobe (CS2). This SDK says it needs Codewarrior 9.2 and that XCode isn't supported. I have a license for CW8, and I certainly don't mind spending $99 on CW10, but from reading this board, frankly I'm a bit gun-shy. It sounds like there are several options, none of which is ideal: - Spend $99 on CW10, live with the bugs and lack of support and also hope that the SDK supports CW10 - Try to find CW9 on Ebay (none listed currently) - Use XCode, despite the lack of support from Adobe. This lack of support of course begs the question what they expect their developers to do after CW10 is officially unavailable in a couple of months, and of course what to do about x86/Mac development. Do any of you have advice, or know of a good online resource for Macintosh Plug-in developers? _jess PS - I'll miss you Ron! I remember you from years and years ago and you were super helpful all the time. I'm looking forward to that Open PowerPlant! XCode won't work: aside from porting issues (a NEW copy of CW9 would be cheap in comparison) XCode generates only Mach-O and AFAIK Adobe is strictly CFM. When Photoshop is updated for x86 they'll have to support XCode, but I don't expect that to be soon: it's a very huge job for a very tiny market (for several years to come) and it'll break every third party plugin out there. Have you tried using CW8? I haven't myself, but there's a fair chance it would build with a few tweaks. The biggest problems I've had with Adobe plugins were the metadata resources, and getting them to load: compiling generally isn't hard on Mac once you get the environment right. I'd have a go with CW8 before buying CW10. > I'm in a pickle. I'm trying to launch into the process of developing a > Photoshop plug-in using the latest version of the Photoshop SDK from [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > you were super helpful all the time. I'm looking forward to that Open > PowerPlant! > XCode won't work: aside from porting issues (a NEW copy of CW9 would be > cheap in comparison) XCode generates only Mach-O and AFAIK Adobe is strictly > CFM. As mentioned above: CS2 introduced Mach-O plugins, which are buildable by Xcode. > When Photoshop is updated for x86 they'll have to support XCode, Which is why they did that :-) > but I > don't expect that to be soon: it's a very huge job for a very tiny market > (for several years to come) and it'll break every third party plugin out > there. Photoshop will be early out the gate for x86. I wouldn't describe Photoshop's market as 'small' - it has an effective monopoly, is overpriced, and consequently earns Adobe billions. > Have you tried using CW8? I haven't myself, but there's a fair chance it > would build with a few tweaks. It certainly would (and does). > The biggest problems I've had with Adobe > plugins were the metadata resources, and getting them to load: compiling > generally isn't hard on Mac once you get the environment right. Ditto for Win32. > I'd have a go with CW8 before buying CW10. CW10 would be a waste of time and money IMHO. --T > > I'm in a pickle. ... >... > > As mentioned above: CS2 introduced Mach-O plugins, which are buildable > by Xcode. Cool. Hadn't seen that yet (I still have to support back to Photoshop 4.) > ... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Photoshop's market as 'small' - it has an effective monopoly, is > overpriced, and consequently earns Adobe billions. It's not Photoshop's market that's small, it's Apple's x86 market. Adobe can sell Photoshop PPC to the few that move to x86 in the first year or so, so why rush? It would cost more to QA a new version of Photoshop (let alone write it, and PS is NOT an easy port, since it uses neither XCode nor Cocoa) than they'd ever make selling it, until there's a few million x86 machines out there to run it. This is pretty much the approach Adobe took to PPC: they released a few PPC native plugins that ran with their 68k application to give some speed benefits where most visible and defuse complaints from shiny new PPC owners who still had to run the 68k version of the program for a few more years. MacTel's are all or nothing: there is no way to mix x86 and PPC code in the same program, so ALL plugins have to be rewritten before PSx86 can ship, and there's no practical way to give out fast native plugins to use with the PPC app. I can think of ways to hack around this, but it would be a very poor use of resources to try it. > >... > > > > As mentioned above: CS2 introduced Mach-O plugins, which are buildable > > by Xcode. > > Cool. Hadn't seen that yet (I still have to support back to Photoshop 4.) Same API, so common code can build for 68K, PPC PEF Classic and Carbon, Mach-O and Win32 DLL (all mine are built this way). > > ... > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > why rush? It would cost more to QA a new version of Photoshop (let alone > write it, and PS is NOT an easy port, since it uses neither XCode nor Cocoa) Carbon is already available on OS X/Intel, so it's arguably not even a 'port' - it's just an audit for endianness issues and other trivia. Case studies demonstrating this are not hard to find. It was designed to be platform agnostic largely to give Apple freedom to switch hardware architectures (NEXTSTEP famously supported at least four, transparently, which should have given the game away...) > than they'd ever make selling it, until there's a few million x86 machines > out there to run it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > MacTel's are all or nothing: there is no way to mix x86 and PPC code in the > same program, so ALL plugins have to be rewritten Recompiled. There is no significant API change between CFM/PEF and Mach-O flavours (same source builds all platforms, as mentioned above). > before PSx86 can ship, and > there's no practical way to give out fast native plugins to use with the PPC > app. Photoshop (and Illustrator) will naturally support Universal Mach-O plugins, making this a non-issue. --T > I can think of ways to hack around this, but it would be a very poor > use of resources to try it. >I'm in a pickle. I'm trying to launch into the process of developing a >Photoshop plug-in using the latest version of the Photoshop SDK from [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Do any of you have advice, or know of a good online resource for >Macintosh Plug-in developers? Write to desktop@metrowerks.com we kept some CW 9 copies for Adobe plugin developers. Explain exactly what your situation is. >PS - I'll miss you Ron! I remember you from years and years ago and >you were super helpful all the time. I'm looking forward to that Open >PowerPlant! Done Ron  SignatureCodeWarrior Community Forum is a free online resource for developers to discuss CodeWarrior topics with other users and our staff -- http://www.codewarrior.com/community -- Ron Liechty - ron.liechty@freescale.com - http://www.codewarrior.com > I'm in a pickle. I'm trying to launch into the process of developing a > Photoshop plug-in using the latest version of the Photoshop SDK from > Adobe (CS2). This SDK says it needs Codewarrior 9.2 and that XCode > isn't supported. If you're building Mach-O plugins for CS2, then Xcode/gcc will work. So should CW8 (or any Mach-O capable version). (Xcode/gcc cannot build the PEF format required by CS or earlier versions of Photoshop - but Apple MPW and pretty much *any* PowerPC version of CodeWarrior can.) > I have a license for CW8, and I certainly don't mind spending $99 on > CW10, but from reading this board, frankly I'm a bit gun-shy. It [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to do after CW10 is officially unavailable in a couple of months, and > of course what to do about x86/Mac development. Xcode will be the only option at that time. This is probably the reason they added Mach-O plugins for CS2 (considerably in advance of the public Intel-Mac announcement, btw). > Do any of you have advice, or know of a good online resource for > Macintosh Plug-in developers? Shameless self plug: http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/ - GPL plugin source code for Mac and Windows platforms. Please ask if you need more information on building CS2 Mach-O plugins with Xcode/gcc. --Toby > _jess > > PS - I'll miss you Ron! I remember you from years and years ago and > you were super helpful all the time. I'm looking forward to that Open > PowerPlant! > > - Use XCode, despite the lack of support from Adobe. This lack of > > support of course begs the question what they expect their developers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they added Mach-O plugins for CS2 (considerably in advance of the > public Intel-Mac announcement, btw). No, that's not the reason they added Mach-O plug-ins. Presumably they did so because they were getting a lot of requests for them. Apple has made it clear for a long time that Mach-O is where you want to be, and as both Mac OS X and Xcode have improved more developers have shifted from CFM to Mach-O. -Eric SignatureEric Albert ejalbert@cs.stanford.edu http://outofcheese.org/ Jess, > I'm in a pickle. I'm trying to launch into the process of > developing a Photoshop plug-in using the latest version of the > Photoshop SDK from Adobe (CS2). This SDK says it needs Codewarrior > 9.2 and that XCode isn't supported. I don't know if Photoshop is on equal footing with InDesign here (although, both being CS2, they might be) but I only have experience with the second. It will never work with either CW 8 (library formats have changed as far as I can tell) or XCode (serious incompatibility with the SDK). CW 10, on the other hand, works all right with some small modifications (very simple in hindsight but it took some time to figure it out for a couple of people here and on the Adobe Forums). Anyway, try to post your question there, too (or check the older threads first). Bye, Gábor |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.