Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
- From: Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>
- To: Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>
- Cc: Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:25:36 +0200
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 11:17 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 23:00 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >>>> There are other languages bindings
> >>>> in our release set, but none of them have been similarly blessed.
> >>>> Assuming Gtk# is added to the bindings set, should it be a language
> >>>> core apps can use?
> >>> That's an interesting question - put another way, should the desktop
> >>> depend on the bindings? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that -
> >>> although making GNOME depend on Mono is an issue which would give me
> >>> more pause than making it depend on gtkmm.
> >> The desktop already depends on the bindings since we have some python
> >> love in the desktop :-) The question is, do we accept all languages in
> >> the desktop, or just a small selection of what's available in the
> >> bindings (and which selection?).
> > I think we should allow everything written with a blessed binding,
> > provided that code is optional (like nautilus+beagle integration, for
> > instance), so that we don't force 3rd parties to use them if they don't
> > want to.
> Definitely not - that is unmanageable and unfair.
> If something is optional it means there are alternatives and one
> alternative should not block another (as then an inferior alternative
> could block a vastly superior alternative getting into the desktop as
> would be the case with beagle and Tracker)
> And if you allow all alternatives in you end up with a mess!
when I mean optional, I'm not really talking about having 'n'
alternatives, but about having core modules compilable without that
dependency, when possible
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>
] [Thread Prev