Re: GNOME 3 cleanup status update

[Paolo Borelli <pborelli katamail com>]

As a user of the python bindings a clarification of the current status
of things and the remaining TODO list would be very helpful. I admit I
have not been following closely, but I bet I am not the only one who
does not know the answers to do these questions:

 - how far is pygi from being production ready? What is missing?
 - which packages are needed to use pygi bindings?
 - how do pygi bindings play with current bindings? Can they be mixed in
the same application? If yes, mixed how (e.g. can bindings to the same
lib be used together)?
 - how much different is the api? How big is the porting effort? Is
there still a way to provide "pythonic" api e.g. functions returning a
tuple?
 - what is the status of pygi and python3? Could it make sense to target
python3 with pygi so that people make a single transition in their code?
 - what is the status of pygi (and introspection in general) with regard
to portability to Windows and OSX?


Ciao

	Paolo


Il giorno dom, 17/01/2010 alle 23.00 +0100, Tomeu Vizoso ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 20:59, Andy Wingo <wingo pobox com> wrote:
> > Hi Tomeu,
> >
> > On Thu 14 Jan 2010 16:29, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu sugarlabs org> writes:
> >
> >> Pygi is still far away from being an usable replacement of static
> >> bindings, at the current development rate.
> >
> > Why is that? Is the gobject-inspection metadata not expressive enough,
> > or does pygi not implement all that gobject-introspection can express?
> 
> Pygi is incomplete, I don't think there is still an enormous amount of
> work to be done, but there's almost zero people with time to work on
> it currently. If there's interest, I can add a TODO list to the wiki.
> 
> As far as I know, g-i has everything we need now.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tomeu
> 
> > Just curious,
> >
> > Andy
> > --
> > http://wingolog.org/
> >
> 
> 
>