Re: Scripting in Gnome

[jamie <jamiem blueyonder co uk>]

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 18:45, Sean Middleditch wrote:

> > 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.

Whether you use XSLT or a built in xml parser, its quicker to develop a
programme to read in and process xml than plain text - okay? Im fed up
repeating this but seeing as you are exceptionally abrasive I thought I
better say it once more in the hope of getting my message across. XML
can also be validated against a schema/dtd and thats handy too for
debugging whether your produced IDL is correct etc.

(BTW your abrasiveness is okay with me - i've seen your other posts and
they are fairly abrasive so i wont take it personally)



> > > 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!

No thats my opinion. Yes theres no standard in Gnome for using xml but I think there should be

If you disagree - fine. I like consistency - enuf said.


> 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
> languages.


It doesn;t solve anything but does makes life easier instead (for
reasons above) -  parsing xml is easier then raw IDL etc etc. If i think
of some more I will let u know -okay?


> 
> If you don't have any real facts or technical details, we can just let
> this thread die.  It's getting pointless.  Thanks.

I'm more than happy to defend my suggestion.

jamie.