Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background]

[Zack Rusin <zackrat speakeasy net>]

On Tuesday 04 March 2003 18:54, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 00:35, Zack Rusin wrote:
> > > I am just tired of hearing glib brought up as a problem everytime
> > > code sharing is discussed because at this point that should be a
> > > non-issue.
> >
> > GLib in itself is never an issue we can deal with core glib just
> > fine, I just don't want any gobject's in core libraries and I think
> > that's a reasonable expectation.
>
> Pango and ATK both use GObject, so, would that mean that we're going
> to have to write a replacement for them to share it with KDE when it
> comes to sharing accessibility/fonts because of the gobject
> dependency?

Accessability is really not my area in KDE so first of all let me put 
this disclaimer here : "All opinions in this email are my own and in no 
way express the stance of the KDE as whole. I speak on behalf of me and 
not the KDE project" :)

Now to the point - those things are impossible to discuss without any 
kind of design. But the way our accessability people wanted to do it 
was to add a compile time option to make a binary plugin that bridges 
Qt and ATK (I don't think Qt using Pango is realistic). So Qt would 
never even see any GObjects and there still were people dissatisfied 
with adding another plugin to Qt and the project got stuck with not 
enough man power and the conclusion was that it just makes more sense 
to do it natively (by the way if you want to talk to that team the time 
is now since they're starting coding native interfaces) 
So, yes, GObject seems to be a big problem for adopting GNOME 
technologies and pitching a technology using GObject to KDE is going to 
be incredibly hard (even for such a wonderful project as GStreamer) for 
you guys.

> I put my vote for sharing as much with KDE (and others) as possible,
> and I really like (and follow) the discussions taking place in

I completely agree, that's one of the reasons I'm on this list.

> freedesktop.org, but if sharing means replacing all GNOME technology
> "because it uses gobject", then I think all the concerns raised by
> people on this issue are totally right. If they are to be replaced
> with technically better implementations, then that's ok, but based on
> poor arguments such as "it uses gobject" might be a good reason for
> KDE, but not at all for GNOME.

ACK. I never asked GNOME to change anything, you guys are spending a lot 
of time and effort on those things and sometimes you outdo yourself but 
so do we and although we all realize how great it would be to share as 
much as possible, sometimes it's simply impossible because neither of 
us will be willing to change its core to adopt to the other. 

Zack 

-- 
This email brought to you by the language "C" and the number 2^32