Re: Scripting in Gnome

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 12:24, jamie wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 17:01, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > 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...
> 
> Bonobo is not as popular as COM is on MS platforms - I wonder why that
> is? 

Good.  Get back to us when you have some facts and not speculation.

> 
> Also Orbit2 admits its around 20% slower than orbit1 in its own
> benchmarks.

Great.  What's that got to do with D-BUS speed comparisons?


> > 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.
> 
> XML should be used for data exchange which is primarily ASCII for almost
> everything. There may be exceptions where its more prudent not to use

Er, what?  I don't see the ASCII relation here; XML is definitely not
ASCII.  And why are these interface definition files going to be
"exchanged" - they should just be compiled by the developer(s) and not
seen elsewhere, ever.

XML isn't a solution to the problem.  Using a metaphor (if I may), XML
is like TCP in Internet networking.  Apps don't just use TCP to talk to
each other; they use a protocol layered on top of TCP.  You need that
protocol defined for IDL-in-XML.  Which is a waste of effort, since we
don't get any real benefits from the XML part, as both I and other more
qualified folks have tried to tell you repeatedly.

> XML. IMO Gnome enfores its HIG for UI consistency and it should do the
> equivalent for data formats.

IDL isn't a data-format.  It's a language.  We don't enforce all
programmers to use a single unified programming language syntax, and
likewise we shouldn't force programmers to use a single unified file
format syntax.  UI design principles and low-level system design
principles really aren't related.  If you want something like the HIG
for programming, I might recommend The Art of UNIX Programming as a good
recently released book.

> > > I meant another level that sat on top rather than "higher" as in easier.
> > 
> > But why do we need this?
> 
> So that existing IDL would be backwards compatible by using the lower
> interface.

::sigh::  But *why* can't we just use IDL itself?  What is the purpose
of making a new file format just to convert it to the old?


> > > 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?
> 
> Change is inevitable - except from a vending machine :)

Change being inevitable isn't a good reason to promote it.

> I am not advocating change for changes sake - Gnome is supposed to
> support a dozen different languages yet only a handful can use bonobo.

Most languages I know of have bindings to Bonobo.

> It would be easier to use XML to generate the language bindings for the
> many languages which dont yet support orbit/corba as opposed to
> devloping bindings for orbit and  writing IDL converters for each of
> them.

Please illustrate how.  Changing from IDL to Bonobo isn't going to get
around the fact that the language needs the bindings to use the
generated code to talk to Bonobo/D-BUS/whatever.  All you're doing is
changing the stub generation mechanism, not getting around the fact that
there is (supposedly) a lack of the low-level bindings in some languages
that said stubs will need to operate.


> > > 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!!
> 
> thats like saying a UI element that violates your HIG should not be
> corrected.

No.  No it's not, because the HIG has absolutely nothing to do with
programming.  Completely separate problem domains.  You're comparing
apples and buicks.
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.