-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:33:30AM -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Hash: SHA1 > [...]
Sorry for not answering sooner. Lots in my inbox lately (literally ;) > This thread is getting a little redundant [...] yes, the thread got (thematically) a bit out of control. I still thought it to be interesting. > [...] this ended up in my overly-rude comment about cooperating with > FOSS developers (sorry you all had to hear that). FWIW, I didn't perceive your postings as "rude" (by a far stretch). On the contrary, I do appreciate your contributions in this mailing list, and especially on this issue. We may have different viewpoints, but I'm still eager to learn from yours -- may be my sometimes blunt style doesn't carry this across. Sorry for that. > Now if I can settle any misgivings I'll try here. > > a.) People need to understand that Glade developers didnt ever > tell the universe that generated code from glade files cannot > be done - niether did we obfuscate the glade file in a way > to make it difficult for people to generate code from - we simply > externalized this feature so that we can focus on more important > things - if code generators are to exist - they should take glade > xml data as input. This makes perfect sense. I will still (from time to time) air my dislike towards XML. When this gets annoying, I hope someone slaps at me :-) > That above is pretty much the official take - now if you'll > indulge me - I'd be happy to argue the irrelevence and futility > of using generated code to the death, not with my Glade hat on > but just from one developer to another. OK, let me dream aloud (it'll have far less weight than actually contributing code). What libglade provides is a "glade-xml" interpreter, for some language "glade-xml". What is the difference to a "glade-xml" compiler? Can't both of them be generated from the same source? Or more to the point: this "glade-xml" language is a concrete syntax for an abstract "widget definition language". I'd rather prefer to see an abstract model first and several concrete syntaxes, perhaps a very compact binary form among them. This seems to be what you talk about in (c) down there, envisioned for gtk+-2.12, right? (Or is this just going to be a stripped-down xml syntax with an ad-hoc parser?). > b.) The point Olexiy raised about embedded is precise, there is no > real issue about the size of the glade file on modern tiny systems, > its more the memory footprint that is dramatically increased > by dragging in libxml2. What the PalmSource people did about this > (not sure if they got to it, but if they did - I'm sure they are > ready to share it) - is they created a libglade equivalent that > parses a binary data file, and a tool that creates the binary based > on a glade file, thus eliminating the libxml2 hit on memory > consumption. Yep. See above. And they might have an easier job if the widget definition language were defined in abstract terms instead of being at the mercy of xml quirks and kinks. > c.) Where we are going - there are no roads (I just wanted to say that), > the point here is that - in gtk+-2.12, assuming everything goes as > planned, we will have glade file parsing /native/ to gtk+ (using > GMarkup instead of libxml2). There will be no more libxml2 woes and > even less reason to use generated code. Amen. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFSyTBBcgs9XrR2kYRAksBAJ99HPRgVfsRoQoHuFLPjLc160J6IwCeLriA 2a8raQv09EjTItMx4igekQk= =G7Iy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gtk-app-devel-list mailing list gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-app-devel-list
