On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 13:34 +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote: > Yes, the next release (this friday) will install a pkg-config file, C > headers, and the current manually defined .vapi files. I've managed to > build a basic C plugin using only the installed files, but I haven't > tried anything with vala. I don't see any reason it wouldn't work, but > I don't know for sure that it does work. >
Hi Johnathan, That sounds great, I'll definitely have a play around with it. > > Assuming we can get some patches to the Vala tools to "autohide" any > > newly added artefacts - would this make automation of binding generation > > satisfactory? > I don't really know what you mean by this, so I can't really give an answer. > I think I explained myself terribly - what I meant was that any bindings generation for Vala for the moment _must have_ manual annotations to get things right like vaargs and array length indicators. TThis means if our theoretical generation tool auto-exposes things on discovery we will end up with bindings that are incorrect (for Vala). But to be honest this comes back to the points Sean made concerning an explicit / implicit plugin API. If there is an explicit plugin interface perhaps auto-generation could be much cleaner and not suffer from such tweaks. > So far, vala hasn't been a high priority, so I haven't really thought > about it much. I've generally been happy picking between C and Python > for plugins I write, and most external plugins are written in Python. > Totally understand. I've just been scratching an itch and it's been a interesting and fun way to learn Vala and some bits of Rhythmbox. I just figured now it's kinda doing what I originally intended, I'd see what the project actually _needs_ instead of just going off on a tangent :-) Cheers, Dan _______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list rhythmbox-devel@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
