Re: IDLs defined?

[Dirk Vangestel <dirk_vangestel yahoo com>]

--- Masatake YAMATO <masata-y is aist-nara ac jp>
wrote:
> > Hello, only one question: Is there any IDL defined
> to do a development
> > tool like kdevelop?
> > 
> > I mean a defined interface to make glade &&
> GtkTrace && gvd like
> > applications work all as the Evolution's
> components does.
> 
> Very interesting.
> What kind of components glue mechanism does
> Evolution provide?
> I believe an IDE should provide minimum functions
> but maximum
> glue mechanism. Emacs? it is an exception:-P

I agree. But what happens is that most of the glue
also needs an implementations, so it's the IDE
developers who end up defining the interfaces and
doing the implementation as well... Like gnome-debug,
gnome-vcs, gnome-build. There are a few notable
exceptions (glade, gob, etc) but as a result they
don't interface with gIDE :) Not yet anyway. ANy
volunteers? Especially for glade, as I feel that'll be
quite a lot of work. And from the looks of it, glade
could use some new developers too...

> As a developer of GtkTrace, I want a follow
> mechanism to
> an IDE:
> 
> * Insert GtkTrace enable flags to Makefile
> * Remove GtkTrace enable flags to Makefile
> * Run target
> 
> If the window of GtkTrace is packed into the IDE
> window, it is cool
> but it is not necessary. Could an IDE provide above
> mechanism if 
> we define the IDL?

Yes, of course. It might take some time to do it, but
I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.

> How about glade and gvd?

I (and everyone else) certainly want glade to
interface directly with gIDE. There's just one (1)
problem: someone has to step in and actually do the
work. I don't know gvd, so can't comment there.

Maybe it would be nice to make a list of all tools we
would like to be accessible from within an IDE? And
make sure we get a complete coverage of required
functionality. Something like this:
Tool name      Description                  Available?
gIDE           IDE framework                yes
gnome-debug    debugging interface          yes
glade          GUI development              no (1)
gnome-build2   Build interface              yes
gnome-vcs      version control interface    no (2)
gvd            debugger front-end           no (4)
GtkTrace       trace tool                   no (1)
               general purpose editor       yes (3)
gob            object builder               no (1)
bakery         C++ framework                no (1)
PonG           preference dialog creator    no (1)

(1): only available as a stand alone application
(2): in development
(3): gIDE switches editor depending on MIME type
(4): not needed, since we have gnome-debug?

> How do you think, IDE authors?

That we need more time ;-)

> Masatake YAMATO
> 
> p.s. A developer who need the tool glue mechanism is
> busy for his/her own
> product. Therefore none can develope complete tool
> glue mechanism
> now.

That's because there is no clear leadership. If every
developer who writes devel-apps would think about how
to integrate the tool with an IDE (preferably gIDE :)
and work together with the IDE authors, we could
really make a killer tool. But there are several
problems: 1. it's not the Unix way 2. it takes extra
effort 3. it takes time to develop/rework/maintain the
interfaces 4. gIDE is in flux right now
Dave (campd) is almost done with a nice revised plugin
interface for gIDE, and as soon as that's done all
gIDE plugins need to be converted to that interface. I
think it will be mature enough after that to be able
to add external components to gIDE (which plugins
already are in a way) using this same interface.

Dirk



__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/