Re: Scripting in Gnome

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 11:51, jamie wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:16, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> 
> > 
> > What makes you think D-Bus is any faster than CORBA?  We already have
> > one backend that does everything we need it to already, so why do we
> > need alternatives?  What advantages do we get for all that extra
> > development time and complexity?  What about the fact that apps would
> > then no longer inter-operate because some would use backend A and others
> > use backend B?
> > 
> The fact that slow bloated KDE thought the Corba implementation in Gnome
> was slow and heavy on memory usage and hence decided not to use it
> speaks for itself.

That is a ridiculous claim.  That's how slow/bloated software gets
written.  Instead of saying, "KDE doesn't liek Corba," try showing some
benchmarks to prove your claims.  If we're just going off what KDE does,
we have a lot more changes to make to GNOME than what IPC mechanism we
use...

> 
> Most people are looking to unify the desktops using D-Bus so why not
> have bonobo make use of it? If bonobo wont use it then some other object
> layer will and that would probably end up marginalising bonobo.

> 
> 
> >  
> > > I suggest XMl as a high level wrapper for a high level interface. If you
> > > want to bypass the higher level and use a lower level interface like IDL
> > > then that should be fine too.
> > 
> > Your fetish for XML is getting almost humorous.  ;-)
> 
> Why do you have a problem with consistency? Is not making things more
> consistent a good thing? Don't you think Ms coverting its office formats
> into xml is a good thing?

This is my point exactly.  What does "consistency" have to do with XML? 
What does Microsoft's supposed-XML file format have to do with anything
regarding IDL?  You don't even seem to understand what XML means.

> 
> 
> >   Nothing about XML
> > makes it "higher level" than IDL.  XML is basically nothing more than a
> > low-level specification for a file syntax.
> 
> I meant another level that sat on top rather than "higher" as in easier.

But why do we need this?

> 
> >   Using XML would require you
> > to write a new document type for IDL-ish purposes, implement tools to
> > duplicate what IDL already does, etc.  That time you'll waste for no
> > reason, both your time and the time of the programmers who have to learn
> > this new XML document type and tools.  XML isn't necessarily a bad tool
> > for the job (I use it for precisely this purpose in AweMUD), but it just
> > isn't as appropriate as the tool GNOME already has.
> 
> There would be little difference between the two in terms of layout only
> you could make use of XSLT with the XML version.

XSLT isn't something you want to subject on people.  Trust me.  And
again, why do you want to waste time reimplementing something we
*already have* in a perfectly usable state?

> 
> > 
> > Unless there is a very specific reason to duplicate/reimplement that
> > work, quit worrying about whether it's XML or not and just use what we
> > already have, what programmers are already familiar with, and what has
> > been designed specifically for the task at hand.
> 
> Again I beleive consistency to be a good thing and worth a little extra
> work. If its a huge amount of work okay fair enough but lets see if it
> is first.

Consistency with *what*?  Making a new XML document type and tossing
away existing IDL is the *complete opposite* of consistency!!

> 
> jamie.
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.