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

On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 16:09, Sander Vesik wrote:
> 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.
the scripting stuff in gnome-office intends to be exactly what you say:
just a couple of entry points. It might seem a bit complicated since
it's accompanied, in the gnome-office module, by a plugin system
(independent of the scripting stuff). But if you get the scripting
interfaces and the Mono-based plugin, it's just 2/3 files.


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