Re: Using python + pygtk in Desktop modules (was Re: Revisiting the Gnome Bindings)

[Maciej Katafiasz <mnews22 wp pl>]

Dnia 27-09-2004, pon o godzinie 13:25 +0300, Tomas Junnonen napisał:
> > I have some practical concerns about the binding support. Jonathan and
> > Thomas, in your proposed cases, would pygtk be enough for you, or do you
> > need to use API that is not just in GTK+ and libglade. For instance, would
> > you need API-stable gnome-vfs and gconf bindings? If those are not
> > available to you, can you workaround it by using C directly from python?
> 
> If python-gconf isn't stabilized and included by default, and everyone who
> needs to access gconf must roll their own C wrapper, we'll essentially end up
> with a dozen python-gconf lookalikes. I can't see how this would be less work
> than just building on the existing bindings.
> 
> Gnome-vfs on the other hand probably isn't as important. It's certainly in
> the "would be nice to have" category, but Python itself provides some of
> the functionality of gnome-vfs such as asynchronous IO, easy to use
> sockets, opening files remotely over a few common protocols etc.
[snip]
> I guess what we need also depends on how we define a GNOME application
> these days. It used to be that you should use gnome_init, gnomeui, gnome-vfs,
> etc. Nowadays a lot of the former is on the way out and gnomeui is being
> deprecated.
> 
> I would now consider any app that tries to follow the HIG and uses gconf to
> be a GNOME application.

Unless there happened something I don't know about, gnome-vfs is *very*
much the part of GNOME platform, and any app serious about being in
GNOME should use it for all file I/O. It's major pain right now that so
many apps are inconsistent and incomplete in their gnome-vfs usage, and
one that should be definitely remedied.

Cheers,
Maciej

PS. FWIW, correct solution to "are the bindings there yet?" is
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139486 , which essentially
means bringing last missing bits of "one true runtime" down into GObject
proper. That's good news, bad news is we have no way to finish it
earlier than for GTK+ 2.8, so while being correct and future-proof, it
definitely isn't solution for current problems


-- 
"Tautologizm to coś tautologicznego"
   Maciej Katafiasz <mnews2 wp pl>
       http://mathrick.blog.pl