Re: Scripting in Gnome

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

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
the conversion.

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.

jamie.
 
> 
> Geert-Jan
>