Re: [pygtk] PyGObject directory issue again, taking a stand

["Dieter Verfaillie" <dieterv optionexplicit be>]

Quoting "Tomeu Vizoso" <tomeu sugarlabs org>:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 13:46, Dieter Verfaillie
> <dieterv optionexplicit be> wrote:
> > Quoting "Tomeu Vizoso" <tomeu sugarlabs org>:
> > It's not up to me to decide anything, but is a kludge like that really
> > planned to be supported? Maybe I missed the point of the whole gi effort,
> > I thought the goal was that static bindings will be abandoned in favor of
> > introspection... Looks like I have some more reading to do ;)
>
> Why would that be a kludge? For maintainability reasons, I tend myself
> to introspection-only,

Up until now I had the impression that we were going to be supposed to work
like that: use on of both, but never both systems together. So the point of
the "do not mix" warning/error I suggested now seems more like a display of
my ignorance than anything else. It's never too late to learn, I guess :)

> but some people (actually, gstreamer
> developers) have shown concern about the extra overhead during
> invocation

gi compared to gst-python?

>  because there are server-side users of gstreamer that don't
> care much about startup cpu and memory usage.

I suspect a typo on your part, but if they don't care then why is the
extra overhead important?

Looks like all my original questions have been answered so thanks for
taken the time to do that :)

mvg,
Dieter

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.