Re: [Re: [gdome]GDome's object system]

[Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>]

> On 12 Jun 2001, Murray Cumming wrote:
> 
> > Why does GDome use its own object system instead of using GObject? Please
> > describe the advantages, if any, of GDome's object system.
> This is a good question!

Paolo Casarini <casarini CS UniBO IT> wrote: 
> I try to answer even though I don't know the GObject Object Model into
> details.

Neither do I.

> - One of the target of Gdome2 is to provide a simple C API that support
>   the DOM level 2 specification and I think the Gdome Object Model is the
>   most simple way to do this.
> - The Gdome2 user haven't to know or understand the Gdome2 Object Model
>   because Gdome2 export only a flat interface made of standard C function.

Users of GObject don't really need to understand the GObject model either. But
users of both GObject and GDome *do* need to understand the memory model that
the API dictates.

> - GObject have a dynamic object type binding while Gdome2 have a static
>   one. So the Gdome2 Object Model is, in some way, a lighter object model.

I suspect that GObject wasn't used because it wasn't understood, or because it
wasn't stable when gdome was created. I forgive libxml for not using GObject,
because libxml became stable before GObject and because libxml was not always
part of GNOME. But Gdome needs better reasons for not using GObject.

Use of a different object system 
- makes the API less clear
- duplicates effort and therefore makes it more difficult to maintain gdome.
- makes it more difficult to create language bindings, or language bindings
that are consistent.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1