Libglade [was Re: GNOME HIG and libglade2]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

http://abisource.com/mailinglists/abiword-dev/2003/Feb/0041.html

This thread on the abiword mailing list was discussing how moving to using
libglade2 it would make it much easier to maintain.

The comments from Jody Goldberg (included) below convince me of how good
idea this is.

At least in principle this seems like a senisible longer term goal,
perhaps post 1.0.  Any objections (read the thread first though please)?

Later

Alan Horkan
http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/


On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Jody Goldberg wrote:

> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:56:57 -0500
> From: Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>
> To: abiword-dev abisource com
> Subject: Re: GNOME HIG and libglade2
>
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 04:01:56PM -0800, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> > > I also tend not to want more library dependencies.
> > > What about adding this stuff only for the Gnome
> > > build?
> >
> > This defeats the proposed purposes for using glade.
> >
> > Adding a 100k library dependancy for these purposes
> > should not be construed as bloat.
>
> I'll chime in to agree with Dom on this.  libglade is a nice
> lightweight library on top of gtk and libxml.  All of the gnome
> elements are optional so there is no worry about pulling in the rest
> of gnome.  Its benefits are significant.  Having the dialogs in xml
> makes layout tweakage via the glade gui much easier than tweaking
> the generated code.
>
> It also allows non coders access to the UI.  As an example, I've
> seen UI folk go through and 'polish' dialogs, adding padding and
> tweaking the layout.  In Gnumeric I regularly get patches to improve
> consistency or HIG compliance of glade based dialogs.
>
> It is a powerful tool for anything using gtk.