Re: when will the gnome-session be ported to 2.0

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

Alex Larsson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 10:27:52AM +0530, bharat  tewari wrote:
> > > but as per the porting document it seems that we should not be making calls
> > > like gtk_signal_connect and should not use GtkObject rather we should be
> > > using GObject and g_signal... kind of calls.
> >
> > The appropriate people to answer this won't be awake for hours yet, so
> > let me throw something in...
> >
> > If you look at the ChangeLog and CVS commit messages for gnome-core,
> > you'll see that, in fact, Mark and Glynn have been steadily moving over
> > to the GObject and g_signal_*() way of doing things. There are a couple
> > of places left where they haven't quite decided what the correct
> > solution is yet, but these are known, too (again the ChangeLog messages
> > indicate this). So, fear not, completely ported (i.e. being able to
> > compile with *_DISABLE_DEPCRECATED defined) is not too far away.
> 
> And there is no reason that all of Gnome 2 need to be compiled with
> DISABLE_DEPRECATED. The backwards compatibility macros/functions was put
> there for a reason. To make it easy to port code.

Easy, sure, but I don't think anything in "core" should be using
deprecated API, so we should move towards a DISABLE_DEPRECATED G2 ASAP.

IMO

-Bill

> While using g_signal_connect() is the in thing to do, and
> gtk_signal_connect() seems utterly old and boring, both do in fact work
> equally well.
> 
> / Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-2-0-list mailing list
> gnome-2-0-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-2-0-list