Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background] - re-using glib
- From: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- To: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- Cc: Zack Rusin <zackrat speakeasy net>, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <Uraeus linuxrising org>, Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>, desktop-devel-list gnome org, dbus <message-bus-list freedesktop org>
- Subject: Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background] - re-using glib
- Date: 05 Mar 2003 09:53:55 +0000
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 03:16, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > I am just tired of hearing glib brought up as a problem everytime
> > > code sharing is discussed because at this point that should be a
> > > non-issue.
> > GLib in itself is never an issue we can deal with core glib just fine, I
> > just don't want any gobject's in core libraries and I think that's a
> > reasonable expectation.
> It should be pointed out here that one of libgobject's primary goals
> is to provide standardized memory management (and so forth) so that
> GObject's can be wrapped in other languages or bridged to other
> object systems.
There are several points that are interesting here; People have already
split bits out of glib (libole2 eg.) for use in KDE, and (clearly) a
common main-loop is a desirable goal with Qt.
It also somewhat worries me that people are adding yet more linked list
routines to the stack;
Would it not make sense to create a 'K'lib - which re-implemented some
of the common code, G(S)List, GHashTable, GMain*, GString etc. under an
X11 license - either using the same symbol names and namespace, 'g_' -
or simply wrapping / symbol aliasing them inside glib?
Then we could have the satisfaction of sharing code / maintenance, not
having GObject/GType forced on us, and perhaps make things more
Probably an orthogonal, and/or distracting issue to D/BUS'
implementation itself; but an interesting / possible one ?
 - since apparently this is an emotive topic.
mmeeks gnu org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
] [Thread Prev