Re: Getting libgnome* into shape
- From: Jonathan Blandford <jrb redhat com>
- To: Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>
- Cc: Jon Trowbridge <trow ximian com>, Jacob Berkman <jacob ximian com>, George <jirka 5z com>, gnome-2-0 <gnome-2-0-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Getting libgnome* into shape
- Date: 30 Aug 2001 14:00:23 -0400
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> writes:
> On Thu, 2001-08-30 at 19:13, Jon Trowbridge wrote:
> > On Thu, 2001-08-30 at 11:54, jacob berkman wrote:
> > >
> > > with just C api, 2 libraries / applications cannot use features of each
> > > other. ie, gal cannot call eel functions if eel calls gal functions.
> > >
> > > however, if the glue between them is simply bonobo, they actually can
> > > use each other, instead of the one-way dependency tree we now have.
> > So we can have a complex dependency graph rather than a dependency
> > tree... is this a good thing? Would we want to do such a thing even if
> > we could?
> > (This is not a flame... I'm honestly curious if there are really cases
> > where this would be worthwhile.)
> well, I don't think the example (eel talking with gal and viceversa) was
> very good. But what Jakob says makes a lot of sense when trying to make
> talk Evolution and Nautilus, for instance. With C APIs, you'll have a
> circular dependency, whereas with Bonobo, the only dependency is Bonobo
And the interfaces themselves... (-:
Otherwise you have a fun boot strapping problem.
] [Thread Prev