Re: Scripting in Gnome

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 15:08, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 11:15, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > > We already have that -- python and perl
> > I mean like VBA and javascript (ie mini-script typeless languages
which
> > dont require huge libraries like perl and python) as these
> > can be easily embedded in apps. Things like the GnomePanel could
have
> 
> Er, Python/Perl are perfectly capable of this.

Yeah but they are overkill - small fast and integrated into core Gnome
without dependencies on perl and python would be a lot better, faster
and leaner on memory usage. We don't need a full blown language to do
that.

> 
> > extensions to allow customisation via scripts - E.G an OnMouseOver
> > event on a panel button could be made avialable to scripts to say
> > allow the button to be highlighted in a different way or the Gnome
menu
> > to be opened without clicking etc
> 
> That's crack.  That last thing we need is to let people make brain
dead
> broken UI changes like this... ;-)

No it allows some of us to extend functionality rather than it being
fixed and static. Theres nothing wrong in allowing for further
customisation (like sawfish allowed lisp to be used to script in
extensions)

> 
> > 
> > >XML is a description language rather than a scripting language.
> > XML can contain embedded scripts like HTML does with javascript. 
> > Mozilla's XUL is a good example of the future of scripted apps.
> 
> Mozilla's XUL is a good example of a web technology, not anything that
> should be used in a dedicated local desktop.
Not really mozilla's XUL is used for its desktop apps.The XPCOM it uses
is similar to bonobo. It allows u to create powerful scripted apps
really fast. Its a really neat technology that Gnome should adopt.

> 
> > GDesklets is another example all though it is rather limited. What
> > we need is a standard way of scripting in Gnome apps with the
ability
> > to create apps using just XML with embedded scripting as well as
allowing
> > existing apps to be extended or controlled.
> 
> There was a project called Entity iirc that did the XML thing.  Never
> took off.  Might be indicative of something.

>  
If it were incorporated into core Gnome rather than being a little heard
of add on then it would get used.

> 
> > 
> > MS has an Active/X scripting control which provides Jscript and 
> > VbScript to apps so something along those lines wood be good.
> > It should be open so that new script languages can be specified
> > and used (hence a language definition XML format that I suggested) 
> 
> You don't need XML to open things to new languages.  In fact, if you
> need any sort of XML at all to use multiple languages, then you have a
> broken design.

 Why? HTML allows various scripting languages to be incorporated. An XML
language spec would be a hell of a lot quicker for using your preferred
language than writing new languages or bindings.

>   The API should simply be generic/extensible from the
> start (as we *already have* with Bonobo/D-BUS/ORBit/etc.) and thus
> automatically usable from any language with bindings.  One just needs
to
> get apps to embrace this.  I guess the GNOME Office framework has some
> code to make this easy and consistent.

Stuff the bindings - they just create extra work every time a library
changes. Say I wanna use VBA - so what ur telling me is that I have to
create a whole new interpreter for VBA complete with all the necessary
language bindings - thats crack. A simple generic scripting interface
with syntax defined by XML is a quick and easy way to getting integrated
scripting into Gnome with the least overhead. The only objects that the
scriptiong language should use are bonobo and/or glade.

jamie.