Re: [Gegl-developer] Returning to python-gegl

["Joao S. O. Bueno" <gwidion mpc com br>]

On 12 February 2015 at 20:50, Jon Nordby <jononor gmail com> wrote:
> On 12 February 2015 at 06:30, Joao S. O. Bueno <gwidion mpc com br> wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > after several months I am taking back a look at my Python bindings for
> > GEGL,
> > which make use of gobject introspection.
> >
> > The situation with gobject introspection is none but frustrating - maybe
> > one could use it, if he could live in #gobject on irc - but there seens to
> > be
> > no documentation resources wherever.
> >
> > Moreover, it does not work very well,
> > whenever something is not available using the auto-generated bindings,
> > there is no workaround, but to make/request changes on the upstream
> > project
> > and wait for a new release.
>
> That can be seen as a feature, it makes sure fixes go upstream, which makes
> it work for every language supported by GI - not just with one particular
> binding.

No doubt about that - if it is being used. But for a moment looking at the
state of lack of documentation, I thought it might have been given up.

> > Add to that things that simply stop working
> > (I just found out I can no longer instantiate a geglBuffer with the
> > gobject
> > introspection - and the solution in my package is a hack already to
> > workaround
> > the constructor failing in the past)
>
> Due to bug in GI, or changes in GEGL?

Probably changes in GEGL - I will try to take a look this weekend -
I was already using a non-standard constructor as I said (maybe it was Sabo's
wrapper you mentioned in the other message. If so, that is broken now)

> > Moreover, the latest GEGL stable release is still built with introspection
> > off -
> > so people can't make use of the Python bindings without rebuildoing
> > GEGL themselves,
> > as all distros ship the package without the "gir"  files.
>
> If we have not changed the default go be --with-introspection, we should do
> that now. But yes, it will only work for GEGL 0.3+
> > But -- I may be wrong --- people may be firmly committed to gobject
> > introspection,
> > and it may be the future, and it is my fault not learning it right -
> > And this is the main motivation for this message:
> > Doo anyone believe/think/can explain/ if gobject introspection has a
> > future at all?
>
>
> I think if we added testcases for consuming GEGL though Python/GI to
> upstream GEGL we would catch (& hopefully fix) breakages early. If we
> include the bindings library you have created in upstream GEGL to provide
> more Pythonic syntax, we could also add testcases for that. We should then
> ship it by default I think.
>
> I don't see the GNOME ecosystem switching away from GI anytime soon. And
> despite the pains (docs, bugs, annotations upstream), I do think the model
> is better than hand-writing bindings...


There are tests in my module - possibly not many as there could be -
I'd like to keep the its git separated due to the Python packaging
ecosystem (and merging the histories would be a mess, I guess).
Do you think it could work as  a git submodule in GEGL?

  js
 -><-

> --
> Jon Nordby - www.jonnor.com