Re: bond

["John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp martianrock com>]

On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 21:16, Dru wrote:
> I dont need stablity at this point. My own code is alpha though isn't 
> reliant on a IDE and I'm more interested in long term direction. 

Well then Scaffold is for you.

> >I would work on glade 3 since it will hopefully be the next generation
> >embedable UI designer.  But then again this is another highly alpha
> >codebase.  So you need to decide you want to make the next generation
> >database IDE or do you want to get to stable as fast as possible.
> >
> Do you know who is working on it? I think there should be a plugin in 
> envoriment for glade,
> where you can intergrade gnome-db widgets if you download the plugin for 
> it (library or xmlfile or both) or have a plugin for bond that would 
> allow you to add in additional information on the widgets.

I personaly would like the idea of using the same widgets but have a way
of hooking them up to a database or any datastore for that matter.  All
IDE's I have used up to this point make you choose from database type
widgets or regular widgets which is not in keeping with the idea of a
dynamic IDE that works for you instead of you working for it.  Since
glade is all XML the widget on the backend can chage even if on the
frontend it is represented as a standard widget (say GtkEntry) bound to
a database field.  

I am not sure who is working on Glade 3.  There was some talk to
intergrating it into Anjuta and I might take a stab at integrating it
into Scaffold.  I belive it does have a plugin interface.


> In regard to bond projects (developed by the user) its not greatly 
> complex, but you do need
> to know how to create makefiles for gtk, and add all the libraries in 
> that are needed.
> I dont think it is so much about creating the makefiles but creating the 
> makefiles in the right fashion so that they will be portable and neat. I 
> use to provide template empty projects to help in creating hte 
> applications.
> I havn't used pkg-config, I just use autoconf. I use to use the gnome1 
> equivialant to pkg-config.
You should use pkg-config as it will take care of all the library and include dependencies
when using the autotools.

> I kind of agree with you with wizards but I also see theres more to it 
> than that. Its always good
> having a starting point. Adding things like unified version numbering 
> and project name, building
> rpm/deb packages for your project, adding a library to your project all 
> these things are hard things if your using autoconf tools (hope i dont 
> sound like an newbie).  

It is actualy very easy.  Gnome 2.x has standerdized for the most part
on a Autotools format that when used with pkg-config takes the guesswork
out of creating projects.  While wizards are a great starting point what
I want to get accross is that packing everything into a wizard is bad. 
For instance libraries.  Why should I ever have to select the libraries
I want to use through an interface.  If one of my source files includes
a header file the associated library should be placed into the build. 
The trouble right now is that how do you associate a library to a header
file.  This is something I want to address and work on.

RPM's and Deb's should simply be created by the project manager. 
Scaffold's project manager (at least the autotools backend) splits a
project up by its libraries, exacutables and other files.  This is
almost enough information to construct a propper RPM or Deb package.  I
know because I package RPM's at work and am maintaining my own
repository of Scaffold Debs.  What is needed is the ability to add data
files, such as icons and pixmaps to the project manager so they can be
packaged up correctly.  Add a small one page wizzard for change logs,
versioning and selecting Deb, RPM or both and you have a package
manager.

> What I would like to see having a wizard at the 
> start where you can choose no makefile, basic makefile, autoconf, 
> autoconf + deb & rpm etc when you create a project. 

Right now support is for autoconf backends in Scaffold.  I personaly do
not see merit in anything else since there are other good IDE's that
support basic project types.  I just think it would create more work
than needed and distract Scaffold from the goal of being an awsome Gnome
IDE.  This however is not my call.

> Then having a option 
> under projects to add more packages to it (getting list from 
> pkg-config). So you start with the basic terminal programme but you can 
> add gtk if you want it, or add bond or add libxml etc which then edits 
> the associated files.
The problem with starting from a basic terminal program is that the main
function changes quite a bit.  I am of the mind of starting from Gtk and
working from there.  Again this is not my call but trying to encompas
every type of programming at first detracts from Scaffold being an IDE
to create Gnome IDE,  Why isn't Glade part of any IDE as of yet?  I
belive it is becuase too many IDE's wanted to be great all around IDE's
so they put Glade integration on the wish list instead of the TODO list.

> I think its good to have a working makefile to start from. 
> 

Hand made Makefiles are evil.  Autotools takes care of it all and puts a
level of portability in to boot.  It is easier to manage, expecialy for
GUI projects and is easy to edit by hand and have the project manager
pick up changes.

> Do you know if gnome going to be intergrated into scaffold? I'll work on 
> getting pkg-config support into bond first and keep coding. I'll wait 
> till the name change over has been complete and we know a bit further 
> where we are going with interactive code generation.
> 

Scaffold is all Gtk/Gnome.  One of the goals of Scaffold is to be so
modular that other Gnome programs can use Scaffold components.  For
instance GtKSourceView is used by both Scaffold's Glimmer component and
the upcoming gEdit for Gnome 2.4.  Glimmer itself is just a Bonobo
wrapper for GtkSourceView.

--
J5