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

["Murray Cumming" <murrayc murrayc com>]

> Hi,
>
>>>  This reminds me, what should language bindings do about the egg
>>> module? Do we wrap it or not? Do we copy-paste the C code into the
>>> language bindings or not?  This puzzles me...
>>
>> If the language can not easily use C code directly from applications,
>> then
>> you have to wrap it. Because libegg is not a shared library, you have to
>> copy-paste the C code and statically link to that. There's no other way
>> that I can think of.
>>
>> But I'd much prefer to see the effort go into moving the libegg parts
>> into
>> a GTK+ or GNOME library. If it's being used widely then it's probably
>> almost ready for that.
>
> Hmm, I think it would be a very bad idea to copy and paste libegg into
> the python bindings and then wrap them. Since that would then be part of
> the python platform which we have to guarantee API stability for. That
> would give the python binded version a "stability guarantee" that was
> never intended for libegg.

I don't think that he's suggesting that he should put libegg bindings into
a GNOME Platform Bindings module, and as the Bindings guy I wouldn't want
him to do that.

But a python binding of libegg could exist separately - though maybe it
should somehow be copy/pasted into python applications rather than used
via a shared python module.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com