Re: Scripting in Gnome

["John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp martianrock com>]

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 12:24, jamie 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? 

Oh come on.  What is this supposed to accomplish?

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

Have you used any of them?  Please point to these benchmarks.  A
scripting interface doesn't need to be fast so I don't know why you are
using this argument.


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

Scripting interfaces is not data exchange.  Its like you read PR
material and try to make arguments based on them instead of indepth
technical experience.

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

Changes happens because it needs to happen not because it is
inevitable.  Why do you think we have stable API's? 

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

Have you checked out http://developer.gnome.org/arch/lang/?  Most of
those support Bonobo or at least Corba.

> 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.

But now you are just talking about bindings and we have a process for
that.  It works well.  It is a reason so many languages support Gnome. 
Language bindings isn't the problem.   Getting applications to export a
Corba interface is where the focus should be. 

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

Your logic confuses me.  You make huge leaps.  What does the HIG have to
do about anything here?  What is incorrect about the IDL?  Since when
was XML made "the Gnome Standard"?  I have said it before but the IDL is
a standard.  It is consistent.  There are paper equivalent to the HIG
which describes how to use IDL to export interfaces.  

<sarcasm>
While we are at it why don't we translate all our C code to XML so we
can be more consistent with the HIG and just use XSLT to compile it down
to assembler?
</sarcasm> 

I'm not trying to make fun of your ideas, as a concept they have some
merit, but your arguments so general and based on "buzz" that we seem to
be going in circles.  Even when people give you legitimate well thought
out reasons of something will not work, you come back with what is
equivalent to "but <enter technology of the day here> is good".  Please
read about the technologies in question and formulate a more specific
action plan.  Give examples of what the XML format would look like, how
it would be used and how it would bring advantages over the IDL
approach.  Answer questions with specifics if you want to get people on
board to your way of thinking.  I for one am still confused on what the
XML would have to do with anything and right now it just looks the same
as the IDL to me.

--
J5