On May 16, 2012 2:08 AM, "Bastien Nocera" <hadess hadess net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 01:41 +0800, Justin Wong wrote:
> > Sorry for being mad, no offence to u.
> >
> > First I would say I approve GNOME to integrate with an IMF, and even
> > choose one IMF as defualt.
> >
> > BUT, IMF must be switchable.
>
> We already mentioned that we want the features to be in the engines from
> each framework, if there needs to be multiple engines. Swappable IMFs
> just means more unreproduceable bugs, more moving parts so more bugs in
> general and a bad out-of-the-box experience.
>
> > As I have said for several times, provide a interface that IMFs can be
> > well integrated with GNOME.
>
> Whether IMFs or something, you cannot add more options, have more moving
> parts and have less bugs. In fact, you'd end up with the bugs from all
> the IMFs.
>
> > There is a solution too satisfy multipul IMFs, but our points' are
> > just Ignored , even though Wen Xuetian has said he can prove it with
> > code!
>
> Your points aren't ignored. We already explained why we don't want
> multiple IMFs for GNOME.
>
> > GNOME provide machanism, IMFs provide implementation.
> >
> > It's not time to discuss WHICH IMF should be integrated, it's time to
> > discuss HOW IMF can be integrated.
> >
> > I know it will not be a easy job, but it's something that should be
> > done.
> >
> > Whichever IMF u now choose as the only IMF for gnome, u are KILLING
> > othe IMFs, so do u think other IMFs' developers work worth nothing?
>
> The other IMFs will likely continue to exist. They will require users to
> make changes to their systems to use them (just like right now if you're
> not using the default IMF for your distribution), and you won't have
> integrated preferences (just like right now).
>
That's what I mean "switchable", but I really doubt that, if even clutter has been integrated to one specific IMF.
> > PLEASE, calm down, slow down, and discuss about how to provide a
> > machanism, and how IMFs can be integrated.
>
> If we choose to merge integration based on IBus (because of a variety of
> reasons), then two things can happen:
> - Developers of other Input Frameworks can start creating patches to the
> upstream GNOME to provide a better integration than the default choice.
> - They choose to start working on the selected IMF because it's the
> selected IMF
> - They choose to concentrate on other desktops
>
> In all cases, the implementation will evolve, and the integration will
> get better. I don't want to have the choice between 2 equally badly
> integrated IMFs for GNOME.
>
> Cheers
>