Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]

[Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 23:00 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > > > There are other languages bindings
> > > > in our release set, but none of them have been similarly blessed. 
> > > > Assuming Gtk# is added to the bindings set, should it be a language
> > > > core apps can use?
> > > That's an interesting question - put another way, should the desktop
> > > depend on the bindings? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that -
> > > although making GNOME depend on Mono is an issue which would give me
> > > more pause than making it depend on gtkmm.
> > The desktop already depends on the bindings since we have some python
> > love in the desktop :-) The question is, do we accept all languages in
> > the desktop, or just a small selection of what's available in the
> > bindings (and which selection?).
> I think we should allow everything written with a blessed binding,
> provided that code is optional (like nautilus+beagle integration, for
> instance), so that we don't force 3rd parties to use them if they don't
> want to.

Definitely not - that is unmanageable and unfair.

If something is optional it means there are alternatives and one 
alternative should not block another (as then an inferior alternative 
could block a vastly superior alternative getting into the desktop as 
would be the case with beagle and Tracker)

And if you allow all alternatives in you end up with a mess!

--
Mr Jamie McCracken
http://jamiemcc.livejournal.com/