Re: Scripting in Gnome
- From: Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
- To: jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Scripting in Gnome
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 12:49:59 -0500
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 12:24, jamie wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 17:01, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > That is a ridiculous claim. That's how slow/bloated software gets
> > written. Instead of saying, "KDE doesn't liek Corba," try showing some
> > benchmarks to prove your claims. If we're just going off what KDE does,
> > we have a lot more changes to make to GNOME than what IPC mechanism we
> > use...
> Bonobo is not as popular as COM is on MS platforms - I wonder why that
Good. Get back to us when you have some facts and not speculation.
> Also Orbit2 admits its around 20% slower than orbit1 in its own
Great. What's that got to do with D-BUS speed comparisons?
> > This is my point exactly. What does "consistency" have to do with XML?
> > What does Microsoft's supposed-XML file format have to do with anything
> > regarding IDL? You don't even seem to understand what XML means.
> XML should be used for data exchange which is primarily ASCII for almost
> everything. There may be exceptions where its more prudent not to use
Er, what? I don't see the ASCII relation here; XML is definitely not
ASCII. And why are these interface definition files going to be
"exchanged" - they should just be compiled by the developer(s) and not
seen elsewhere, ever.
XML isn't a solution to the problem. Using a metaphor (if I may), XML
is like TCP in Internet networking. Apps don't just use TCP to talk to
each other; they use a protocol layered on top of TCP. You need that
protocol defined for IDL-in-XML. Which is a waste of effort, since we
don't get any real benefits from the XML part, as both I and other more
qualified folks have tried to tell you repeatedly.
> XML. IMO Gnome enfores its HIG for UI consistency and it should do the
> equivalent for data formats.
IDL isn't a data-format. It's a language. We don't enforce all
programmers to use a single unified programming language syntax, and
likewise we shouldn't force programmers to use a single unified file
format syntax. UI design principles and low-level system design
principles really aren't related. If you want something like the HIG
for programming, I might recommend The Art of UNIX Programming as a good
recently released book.
> > > I meant another level that sat on top rather than "higher" as in easier.
> > But why do we need this?
> So that existing IDL would be backwards compatible by using the lower
::sigh:: But *why* can't we just use IDL itself? What is the purpose
of making a new file format just to convert it to the old?
> > > There would be little difference between the two in terms of layout only
> > > you could make use of XSLT with the XML version.
> > XSLT isn't something you want to subject on people. Trust me. And
> > again, why do you want to waste time reimplementing something we
> > *already have* in a perfectly usable state?
> Change is inevitable - except from a vending machine :)
Change being inevitable isn't a good reason to promote it.
> I am not advocating change for changes sake - Gnome is supposed to
> support a dozen different languages yet only a handful can use bonobo.
Most languages I know of have bindings to Bonobo.
> It would be easier to use XML to generate the language bindings for the
> many languages which dont yet support orbit/corba as opposed to
> devloping bindings for orbit and writing IDL converters for each of
Please illustrate how. Changing from IDL to Bonobo isn't going to get
around the fact that the language needs the bindings to use the
generated code to talk to Bonobo/D-BUS/whatever. All you're doing is
changing the stub generation mechanism, not getting around the fact that
there is (supposedly) a lack of the low-level bindings in some languages
that said stubs will need to operate.
> > > Again I beleive consistency to be a good thing and worth a little extra
> > > work. If its a huge amount of work okay fair enough but lets see if it
> > > is first.
> > Consistency with *what*? Making a new XML document type and tossing
> > away existing IDL is the *complete opposite* of consistency!!
> thats like saying a UI element that violates your HIG should not be
No. No it's not, because the HIG has absolutely nothing to do with
programming. Completely separate problem domains. You're comparing
apples and buicks.
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
] [Thread Prev