Hi, On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 17:12 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Hi,
*snip*
GtkBuilder validation looks like more gook to add to our Automake files, when we really want less gook there. Even if it's only a small amount of code, I'd rather it be implemented as an autoconf archive macro and re-proposed. I'm not sure if it's really necessary anymore anyway, since GTK+ almost always warns about XML problems at runtime, right?
Who cares how much ‘gook’ we have in the build system? What we care about is how useful it is. The value of adding validation for files at build time is that it catches errors *at build time*, not at runtime if a certain code path is taken. For GtkBuilder files, the usefulness of this depends entirely on the project — if the project uses a single massive .ui file, any errors in that are going to be caught when the program is started. But if a project uses a separate .ui file for each dialogue, you have to test every dialogue in the program at runtime before you know all the .ui files are valid. This is a textbook example of the tradeoff between build time and runtime testing. The example rules given on the goal page are not the tidiest. There is a simpler way to do this: https://git.gnome.org/browse/hitori/tree/Makefile.am#n95 (four lines) https://git.gnome.org/browse/hitori/tree/configure.ac#n51 (two lines) I don’t think that needs to be shipped out to an autoconf-archive macro — including such a macro in a project would be two lines at the least, so it would save a total of four lines. This one is better off being cargo-culted. Philip
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part