Re: [Banshee-List] Glade Squashing Day

["Andrés G. Aragoneses [ knocte ]" <knocte gmail com>]

Michael Hutchinson escribió:
> On Feb 11, 2008 8:36 PM, Gabriel Burt <gabriel burt gmail com> wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 2008 7:32 PM, Scott Peterson <lunchtimemama gmail com> wrote:
> > > For the record, what is the project's attitude toward stetic?
> > I haven't really used Stetic in a project, so can't speak to it other
> > than where it is the same as Glade.  My personal opinion is that Glade
> > is great for doing UI mockups, but more pain and indirection than it's
> > worth.
>
> The advantage of Stetic over glade is that it has pretty tight
> GTK#/Mono integration -- you can create GTK# widgets
> (http://monodevelop.com/Creating_custom_widgets_with_MonoDevelop), use
> hand-written widgets from stetic, and stetic-created widgets from
> hand-written code. It uses code generation to build the widgets*, so
> there's no runtime parsing and binding. It can import glade files, can
> target different GTK# versions, and handles redirecting translatable
> strings through a gettext implementation of your choice.
>
> There are of course many places where it's easier to write the code by
> hand, but for dialogs and widgets that have a lot of Table/VBox/HBox
> layout (e.g. MonoDevelop's settings panels) it's invaluable.
>
> *we recommend committing the generated files to SCM so that
> developers/packagers etc don't need MonoDevelop.

I would recommend stetic too, specially for the reason of having the 
import utility from Glade (which would turn this task in automatic, 
instead of a manual global Glade->C# effort).

Just my 2c.

Regards.

	Andrés	[ knocte ]

--