RE: Scripting choices [Was: 2.4 Module List - zenity]

On 30 Mar 2003, Andrew Sobala wrote:

> If people are building a generic scripting framework, it is highly
> desirable over single-language bindings because it means that we (GNOME)
> can allow people to script in [insert scripting language of the moment
> here]. Python and .NET are 2 popular suitable languages.
> Support for only a single language means that we'd have to rewrite
> bindings from scratch whenever people wanted a new language, which they
> will.
> On the other hand, it looks as if the code in gnome-office is fairly
> sparse at present. (200 lines?)

Dependning on what and how you expose you may be able to get away with
more or less just a couple of entry points (like say for invoking a script
and for registering a language), and need not be complex. And the language
side doesn't really have to be complex either. It worries me people seem
to want a complex API that would be orthogonal to existing APIs just for
scripting use. This would really be a pretty bad thing.

> -- 
> Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
> "If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
> something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
> and morse code." -- hp


	Humans love to categorize and organize things. We break up time into
	hours, days and years. Everything has to have a name, a history, an
	understanding of it's origins and must be indexed somewhere on Google.

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