Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background] - re-using glib

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Owen,

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[1], and perhaps make things more
efficient.

	Probably an orthogonal, and/or distracting issue to D/BUS'
implementation itself; but an interesting / possible one ?

	Regards,

		Michael.


[1] - since apparently this is an emotive topic.
-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot