Re: Scripting in Gnome

[Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas broadpark no>]

tor, 05.02.2004 kl. 16.51 +0000, skrev jamie:
> 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.
> 
KDE never tried to use the CORBA implementation that is in GNOME. They
used Mico in their early days and so did GNOME. Elliot Smith implemented
ORBit because Mico was slow, and ORBit was a huge improvement
performancewise over Mico. By that time though, KDE had moved on to
doing their own stuff and ORBit used glib etc, so they wouldn't use
it...

It's all in the archives if you want to check :-)

> 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?
> 
Depends on that making them more accessible, reusable, interchangable,
open...none of which are necessarily dependant on using XML.

> 
> >   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.
> 
Abstracting the abstractions just for fun?

> >   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.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
We can be consistent without using XML all over the place, no?

Cheers
Kjartan