Re: Scripting in Gnome
- From: Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
- To: jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>
- Cc: "John (J5) Palmieri" <johnp martianrock com>, Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Scripting in Gnome
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:44:46 -0500
Can you all take this discussion off-list? It's terribly uninformative
and uninteresting to the vast majority of us.
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 15:40, jamie wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 20:09, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 12:24, jamie 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
> > > is?
> > Oh come on. What is this supposed to accomplish?
> I was making the point the bonobo is not used as much as it should be
> and therefore I suspect there are problems with its current incarnation
> using corba.
> > > Also Orbit2 admits its around 20% slower than orbit1 in its own
> > > benchmarks.
> > Have you used any of them? Please point to these benchmarks
> Orbit2 home page mentions performance
> > . A
> > scripting interface doesn't need to be fast so I don't know why you are
> > using this argument.
> True but I want bonobo to be used all over the place and that would make
> scripting easier and better. Developers will only use bonobo if its fast
> and efficient
> > > > 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
> > > XML. IMO Gnome enfores its HIG for UI consistency and it should do the
> > > equivalent for data formats.
> > Scripting interfaces is not data exchange. Its like you read PR
> > material and try to make arguments based on them instead of indepth
> > technical experience.
> IDL is raw data - I dont see any programming logic in it.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Using XML would require you
> > > > > > to write a new document type for IDL-ish purposes, implement tools to
> > > > > > duplicate what IDL already does, etc. That time you'll waste for no
> > > > > > reason, both your time and the time of the programmers who have to learn
> > > > > > this new XML document type and tools. XML isn't necessarily a bad tool
> > > > > > for the job (I use it for precisely this purpose in AweMUD), but it just
> > > > > > isn't as appropriate as the tool GNOME already has.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 :)
> > Changes happens because it needs to happen not because it is
> > inevitable. Why do you think we have stable API's?
> I was joking hence the :)
> > > I am not advocating change for changes sake - Gnome is supposed to
> > > support a dozen different languages yet only a handful can use bonobo.
> > Have you checked out http://developer.gnome.org/arch/lang/? Most of
> > those support Bonobo or at least Corba.
> Yes but what happens if the back end of bonobo changes so that new
> bindings need to be done from scratch again (remember I am only
> proposing the xml format if bonobo changes)
> > > 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
> > > them.
> > But now you are just talking about bindings and we have a process for
> > that. It works well. It is a reason so many languages support Gnome.
> > Language bindings isn't the problem. Getting applications to export a
> > Corba interface is where the focus should be.
> Getting them to support bonobo yes
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless there is a very specific reason to duplicate/reimplement that
> > > > > > work, quit worrying about whether it's XML or not and just use what we
> > > > > > already have, what programmers are already familiar with, and what has
> > > > > > been designed specifically for the task at hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > corrected.
> > Your logic confuses me. You make huge leaps. What does the HIG have to
> > do about anything here?
> Nothing, I was comparing the consistency Gnome has in its UI and the
> lack of it elsewhere and making the point that it would be nice if there
> could be consistency throughout.
> > What is incorrect about the IDL?
> nothing if you use it just for Corba. If bonobo is decoupled from Corba
> is it unreasonable to consider an alternative to IDL?
> > Since when
> > was XML made "the Gnome Standard"? I have said it before but the IDL is
> > a standard. It is consistent. There are paper equivalent to the HIG
> > which describes how to use IDL to export interfaces.
> I don't doubt that.
> > <sarcasm>
> > While we are at it why don't we translate all our C code to XML so we
> > can be more consistent with the HIG and just use XSLT to compile it down
> > to assembler?
> > </sarcasm>
> I said XML for data (not programming logic)
> > I'm not trying to make fun of your ideas, as a concept they have some
> > merit, but your arguments so general and based on "buzz" that we seem to
> > be going in circles. Even when people give you legitimate well thought
> > out reasons of something will not work, you come back with what is
> > equivalent to "but <enter technology of the day here> is good". Please
> > read about the technologies in question and formulate a more specific
> > action plan. Give examples of what the XML format would look like, how
> > it would be used and how it would bring advantages over the IDL
> > approach. Answer questions with specifics if you want to get people on
> > board to your way of thinking. I for one am still confused on what the
> > XML would have to do with anything and right now it just looks the same
> > as the IDL to me.
> It would be very similar of course - theres no point making it radically
> Suppose I have a scripting interface and I would like to retrieve the
> IDL for an object at runtime. Now I could use query_ref but I might want
> the actual IDL to build an object wrapper for it at runtime.
> If that object returned a chunk of xml that would be okay. If on the
> other hand I got back raw IDL it would be a pain - I reiterate its
> easier to parse xml than IDL.
> > --
> > J5
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
] [Thread Prev