Re: Scripting in Gnome

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

> 
> Er, what?  I don't see the ASCII relation here; XML is definitely not
> ASCII.  

I said primarily ASCII not exclusively

> 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.

Duh, They need to be processed by other tools...

> 
> 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.

Declaring the objects and types of an interface to me is data (IDL may
look like a programming language to you but its still raw data - there's
no logic being processed)


> 
> > > > 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?

I was just suggesting if bonobo was going to use D-Bus in the future and
so would have been rewritten in parts then it might also be handy to
have an xml representation of the IDL as well. You can hardly deny that
it is less effort to transform xml version of IDL into language bindings
for currently non-supported languages. 


> > > 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.

The gnome libraries are very consistent (as are the gtk ones) and
generally most things in Gnome are done in a consistent fashion to its
credit. Why spoil it by being inconsistent in other areas? (Yes there
can be exceptions where its practible)


jamie.