Re: Gtk# in 2.16

[Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>]

On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 07:16 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:

> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/language-bindings/2003-November/msg00013.html
> 
> The Java and Python maintainers seem to have grown to like it.

If you say so.  But I still have yet to hear a good reason for why it's
necessary.  Nothing I've heard so far outweighs the increased burden it
places on the users, packagers, and on me.  There is no independent
release cycle.  There have been no API stability issues.

> Do you plan to depend on GtkHtml for ever, or will you remove it from
> Gtk# when everybody has stopped using it? What effect will this have on
> existing applications?

Our dependency on gtkhtml is optional.  The small portion of the API we
bind hasn't changed since 3.0.  The only reason I can think of to remove
it from Gtk# would be to integrate the bindings into gtkhtml itself,
which was discussed at one time.

> > I don't personally see the value of the split between Platform/Desktop
> > in a language binding.  Maybe if that rule is written in stone, Gtk#
> > could be added to the Desktop release instead of the Bindings set.  ;-)
> 
> You obviously saw some value to this idea, because you already removed
> some of the more flaky stuff from Gtk#.

We removed some stuff that people had added and abandoned, didn't work,
and that I didn't feel like fixing/maintaining myself.  Some of the
removals were to integrate the bindings into the libraries that they
bound, in the hopes they would get more love.  It had nothing to do with
whether it was platform or desktop.

> > FWIW, we have more or less decided that no new libraries will be added
> > to Gtk# that are not platform libraries, so we would only need an
> > "exemption" on that rule for the existing binding set.
> > 
> > Technically, gnomeprint is a show-stopper for us.  We expose its API in
> > gnome-sharp.dll and therefore could not split it out and still maintain
> > our API stability guarantees.
> 
> So, GtkHtml is in a different .dll?

Yes, as are rsvg and vte.
> 
-- 
Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>