Re: GnomeAppBar interactive mode

[mawarkus t-online de (Matthias Warkus)]

+++ Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:45:34PM -0400 +++
Havoc Pennington e-mails me. Film at 11. Reply right now, after the break.
> mawarkus t-online de (Matthias Warkus) writes: 
> > It's not marked up as deprecated, neither in the docs nor in the
> > headers. What has it been replaced by? GtkStatusbar? 
> 
> Yes. GtkStatusbar now allows you to avoid the "context" mess by
> passing 0 for the context ID, so is pretty easy to use.

OK.

> > What's the way to go if you want to have a progress bar in the
> > status bar, then?
> 
> Assuming you want that, which few people do ;-),

It doesn't make much sense for anything but browser-type applications,
right. The minibuffer-like interaction doesn't make much sense either,
IMHO.

> you amazingly enough pack a progress bar and a status bar into a
> GtkHBox

Well, yeah. But the obvious way isn't always the Right Way(TM), which
is why I asked.

> > On a related note: There still seem to be multiple ways of doing menus
> > and toolbars. Does it make sense to mention the respective GTK+
> > widgets, gnome-app-helper stuff etc. or should I tell my readers to
> > use Bonobo for everything? Even test-gnome seems to use the Bonobo way
> > these days.
> 
> Your readers won't appreciate the real answer, which is that many
> people want to replace all these ways with yet another way. ;-)

Oh great. I've been wanting this to happen for some time, but now that
I've got to write about it, all of a sudden it doesn't feel as good as
it should.

> I use GtkItemFactory or create menus manually, myself.

I suppose I'll do the usual thing and do a lot of recursive grepping
over my source trees to find out what seems to be the most popular
practice ;)

mawa
-- 
QOTD:
	"I'd never marry a woman who didn't like pizza.  I might play
	golf with her, but I wouldn't marry her."