[Glade-users] why using libglade is better...

[Neil Zanella <nzanella gmail com> (Neil Zanella)]

Thank so much you for your insightful reply,

My main window has a really large number of widgets (in fact I use a notebook,
that is why it is so large). When I compiled it, it took about 20
minutes. That was
just to compile the user interface alone. But when I use glade, which
I assume uses
libglade, the widgets show up almost immediately. That is a time savings so huge
that if I were to tell anyone nobody would even believe me, but that's just how
much better it is.

Now what I want to ask then is, I've got several popup widgets besides the main
window. I need to connect these to buttons and menu selections that that make
them show up on the screen...

So should I make a separate file for each popup widget?

Also, as a technical question (to check up on the memory issue), does libglade
load the whole file into memory and then parse it (like DOM) or does
it just parse
on the fly without validating but in a really speedy manner (like
SAX)? Cause in the
former place, I may want to split my main window even further and
connect everything
in the source file, but if SAX-like parsing is used then there's no need.

Please let me know,

Thanks,

Neil

> On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 22:11, Neil Zanella wrote:
>
>
> > I currently have an application consisting of somewhere around
> > an estimated 4,000 widgets. In the past, I'd break everything down
> > in small modules and compile separately to speed up compile time.
> > Now, with libglade, there is no compile step for changes in the user
> > interface, so long as I do not change the names of my widgets.
> >
> > Right?
> >
> > So things should be faster and I don't even need to make several
> > modules: I can just pack it all in one big XML file without impacting
> > development time.
> >
> > Right?
>
> libglade is really meant to be used with one window/dialog per file.
>
> Otherwise it wastes memory and processor time on unnecessary windows.