Re: Scripting in Gnome
- From: jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>
- To: Geert-Jan Van den Bogaerde <geertjan gnome org>
- Cc: Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Scripting in Gnome
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:40:40 +0000
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 19:31, Geert-Jan Van den Bogaerde wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 20:16, jamie wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 18:45, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > > Why would XML work better than IDL? IDL could just be compiled to
> > stubs
> > > that use D-BUS. The "oh, it's XML, so it's just going to be easier
> > and
> > > better" rehashing is getting old. Especially given detailed claims to
> > > the contrary by others in this thread.
> > Whether you use XSLT or a built in xml parser, its quicker to develop a
> > programme to read in and process xml than plain text - okay? Im fed up
> > repeating this but seeing as you are exceptionally abrasive I thought I
> > better say it once more in the hope of getting my message across. XML
> > can also be validated against a schema/dtd and thats handy too for
> > debugging whether your produced IDL is correct etc.
> This argument might have carried some weight if the limiting factor in
> producing language bindings was the effort of writing the IDL parser for
> that language. It is not, because parsing IDL is only a very small part
> of what is involved in writing language bindings, so it's not worth
> deviating from the established standard of CORBA IDL over.
1) You can automate and verify the conversion using XSLT - its gotta be
a lot quicker than writing a parser, performing error checking and doing
2) I was only suggesting deviating if bonobo no longer became dependant
on corba and therefore there was no longer a strong case for using IDL.
] [Thread Prev