From: Chema Celorio (chema@ximian.com)
Date: Thu Jul 05 2001 - 15:42:46 EDT
On 05 Jul 2001 19:20:50 +0100, Dermot Musgrove wrote:
> Hi Chema,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Chema Celorio wrote:
> >
> > On 03 Jul 2001 18:56:41 +0100, Dermot Musgrove wrote:
> > > Chema Celorio wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I uploaded to the CVS a TODO file in the glade2 module.
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Please can I ask the Glade2 developers to contact the authors of the
> > > source code generators to explain what is involved in changing from
> > > Glade to Glade2.
> >
> > As far as i know most of the code generators are external programs,
> > if this is correct then the code generators just need to be able to
> > read the new format.
>
> So can I assume that:
> 1) All the information held in Glade files will also be in Glade2 files.
Yes, we need to port glade files from version 1 to version 2 so we can't
loose any info in the conversion. Except for the C code generation
parameters. But this is something that has not received the required
thought yet, so it is still in the air.
> 2) There is no new information in Glade2 files that needs to be handled .
I don't think we can asume this, gtk+2 has new features and also more
information will be added to make libglade smaller, by "blind" parsing
properties.
> 3) All defaults will be the same - and no new defaults.
I don't think this can be assumed. I guess the defaults map to the gtk
defaults so if gtk changes then this will change too.
> 4) Someone will announce when the XML format is frozen.
I suggest that you take a look at the XML format that James has been
working on and review it. Send any comments you have on the new format
so that we make sure we get it right.
>
> > > So far, there seems to be _no_ thought or planning given to generators
> >
> > I don't know what thought or planing are you talking about. If you have
> > any ideas about code generators it would be good if you can talk about
> > it. The only thought is to move the C code generator out of glade and
> > either make code generators an external progam that read .glade files or
> > make them loadable glade modules.
>
> These are very different requirements for the generator authors, indeed I
> am not sure how this this would work at all. I guess that you have
> considered making Glade2 an object that would supply services so that
> IDEs, editors or even generators can use Glade2 functionality rather than
> the present way round.
I don't think genereators want to use glade2 functionality, but I have
not given thought to this idea. What funcitonality do you want glade2 to
provide to generators ?
>
> > > and it would be very destructive to fork a UI builder without source
> > > code generators - when 'version 1' already works.
> >
> > fork ? I don't think glade2 qualifies as a fork.
>
> Good news - I know that the changes to gtk2 are likely to be the most
> work but I worry that Glade may need to be be changed and the two versions
> will diverge.
the two versions are diverging already. glade2 is mostly a rewrite of
glade.
>
> I am really making a request that the Glade2 developers do not take the
> many generator authors for granted. I am not sure what reason there is to
> commit myself to many hours of work and convert my generator when I am
> not sure what benefits there are.
I don't understand what you mean by glade2 developers taking generator
authors for granted. I am contributing to the community, so are the code
generators authors.
The current glade code had some design limitations that where hard to
fix. Damon never thought that his small project was going to grow to be
such an important part of gtk+/GNOME, the code grew and grew. Damon has
been wanting to do a rewrite for some time now but he has been very busy
with other projects (mostly evolution).
I started writing glade2 because i wanted to add undo to the current
glade and i (stupidly) thought that it was more work to add undo to the
current codebase than to rewrite it from scratch and add undo. I was
wrong ;-). But glade2 is comming along nicelly.
>
> I am only speaking for myself but I wrote a Perl generator because I
> wanted to use Glade and Perl and I can still do this with Glade1.
If glade1 suits your needs you don't need to migrate to glade2. Glade1
can be ported to gtk+ 2.0 if someone writes the code. I am not sure what
will happen first, glade2 beeing "usable" or glade1 beeing ported to
gtk+ 2.0, hard to tell at this point.
I just want to add something else, i didn't sat down one day and
"decided" to write glade2. Anna complained about glade not having undo,
I told her that i would add it in the weekend "consider it done" i said.
I got the glade code and started looking arround, after i realized that
the task was not as easy as i first thought i started writing a "this is
how i would design glade, IF I where to write it", it was a weekend
project that I never thought would see the light of day. I got hooked
and started writing more and more code. Talked with Damon and the gtk+
guys about THE POSIBILITY of me rewriting glade, i made it very clear
that it was unlikely to happen. One day it just was clear to me that
this small weekend project was starting to take off, so here is where we
are.
I have been told a couple of times "why didn't you inform us ?", "who
made this desition that is affecting my code", "you can't be taking
GNOME desitions on your own and not talking about it with the rest of
the parties". well the answer is simple, this was just an accident. It
just happened. I wrote code because i wanted to do something fun for a
weekend, next time i look back glade2 is now a project that is moving
along.
regards,
Chema
_______________________________________________
Glade-devel maillist - Glade-devel@ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/glade-devel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 05 2001 - 16:53:51 EDT