Re: KDE Interop [Was: D-BUS background]

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 01:37, Zack Rusin wrote:
> Now to the point - those things are impossible to discuss without any 
> kind of design. But the way our accessability people wanted to do it 
> was to add a compile time option to make a binary plugin that bridges 
> Qt and ATK (I don't think Qt using Pango is realistic).
why is it not realistic? Pango was designed so that it can be used in QT
and other toolkits.

>  So Qt would 
> never even see any GObjects and there still were people dissatisfied 
> with adding another plugin to Qt and the project got stuck with not 
> enough man power and the conclusion was that it just makes more sense 
> to do it natively (by the way if you want to talk to that team the time 
> is now since they're starting coding native interfaces) 
> So, yes, GObject seems to be a big problem for adopting GNOME 
> technologies and pitching a technology using GObject to KDE is going to 
> be incredibly hard (even for such a wonderful project as GStreamer) for 
> you guys.
that is a pity, since all GNOME technology is based on GObject. So that
means none of the current GNOME technologies are valid for sharing with
KDE, despite the efforts already made (Pango, ATK, for instance) to make
that possible.

> > I put my vote for sharing as much with KDE (and others) as possible,
> > and I really like (and follow) the discussions taking place in
> I completely agree, that's one of the reasons I'm on this list.
> >, but if sharing means replacing all GNOME technology
> > "because it uses gobject", then I think all the concerns raised by
> > people on this issue are totally right. If they are to be replaced
> > with technically better implementations, then that's ok, but based on
> > poor arguments such as "it uses gobject" might be a good reason for
> > KDE, but not at all for GNOME.
> ACK. I never asked GNOME to change anything, you guys are spending a lot 
> of time and effort on those things and sometimes you outdo yourself but 
> so do we and although we all realize how great it would be to share as 
> much as possible, sometimes it's simply impossible because neither of 
> us will be willing to change its core to adopt to the other. 
then, we might start thinking on changing our will and see all the pros
and cons of everything. As I said, I want to share every possible thing
with KDE, but making all current GNOME technologies invalid for that
"because they use gobject" is what concerns me.

Of course, in the star trek future, as Havoc says, we might think about
using common implementations for a lot of more things, not based neither
on GObject nor on some KDE-specific thing, but in the meanwhile, I think
we should try to share what we already have.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]