Re: Scripting in Gnome

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 13:11, jamie wrote:
> > 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...

What tools?  IDL is compiled to the bindings, and that's it.

> 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)

Correct.  That doesn't change the fact that GUI design principles are
absolutely unrelated to coding/document design principles.  The book I
referenced also has a ton of information on protocol and file format
design issues.  Others on the list might be able to recommend other good
books or online resources for the topic.

> 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. 

Why would XML work better than IDL?  IDL could just be compiled to stubs
that use D-BUS.  The "oh, it's XML, so it's just going to be easier and
better" rehashing is getting old.  Especially given detailed claims to
the contrary by others in this thread.

> > 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)

Cool!  Now you're comparing apples and elephants!

Go back to the part where I asked you to explain how using XML for the
IDL will make things better or consistent, and try actually pretending
you know what you're talking about and say something more than "well,
it's XML, so of course it's more consistent."

It would also be kinda nifty if you responded to some of the technical
questions I had in my mail you chose to cut out.  I.e., how XML to
bindings solves the lack of support for Bonobo/D-BUS in the target

If you don't have any real facts or technical details, we can just let
this thread die.  It's getting pointless.  Thanks.
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]