Re: the future of GNOME Applets

[Callum McKenzie <callum physics otago ac nz>]

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 14:53 +0200, Danilo Šegan wrote:
> Hi Ronald,
> 
> Today at 10:29, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> 
> > No, they're lovely. Can't imagine my panel without Wanda who takes up
> > precious CPU cycles and memory. Seriously, they're some nice amusement
> > and don't add complexity, neither do they require any maintainance.
> > Similar to why we include gnome-games in the desktop.
> 
> I certainly hope Callum doesn't hear you on this one ;-)
> 

Saying "it won't require any maintenance" is dangerous.

It is quite possible to get a piece of software to the point where it
doesn't crash and has no reasonable feature enhancements, but that
doesn't mean that it won't look/perform like crap as the rest of the
desktop advances.

Wanda could be justified as the canonical "example applet" though. This
option requires periodic (and possibly non-trivial) maintenance as APIs
evolve, but the fish applet is far less likely to receive quick hacks to
implement desirable features so should stay reasonably clean code.

One day I'd like to justify gnome-games on the grounds of being good
examples, but that day isn't today :).

 - Callum