Re: [g-a-devel]Re: [G2R] Re: gail-1.0.pc.in
- From: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>
- To: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- Cc: Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>, "Padraig O'Briain" <Padraig Obriain sun com>, Release Team <gnome2-release-team gnome org>, gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
- Subject: Re: [g-a-devel]Re: [G2R] Re: gail-1.0.pc.in
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:05:54 +0000
Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> Hi Jody,
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:25:01AM -0500, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > > I personaly feel it is a serious mistake to have gail anywhere
> > > near the bottom of the stack here. In fact I think that we should do
> the
> > > following:
> >
> > Gail feels like a very similar problem to glade. Can we not solve it
> > the same way ? Have the core of gail low in the heirarchy and have
> > the modules above register gail extensions.
>
> Well - the way gail works is via GTK_MODULE hooks, and as such it
> is somewhat difficult to load the modules efficiently. ie. there is AFAICS
> no single entry point, or place where one can load auxilliary modules one
> might need.
>
> I tend to think putting some hooks into the gnome_program_ stuff
> might be very useful - so we don't setup accessibility for modules unless
> we use them, also providing a good time to do some explicit loads of
> accessibility modules - and perhaps hooking in at-bridge etc. - without
> using the somewhat uncontrolled GTK_MODULES entry. - Of course, then we'd
> need another env. var to conditionaly do that: GNOME_ACCESSIBILITY perhaps
> or somesuch.
>
> Of course - perhaps I've misunderstood the design; but the
> GTK_MODULEs thing seems rather limiting to me in terms of libglade like
> flexibility. I think as a direction it might make a lot more sense to
> utilize gnome-program, and leave GTK_MODULES env. vars for just that -
> Gtk+ programs only.
If we go this route we need to be sure that the GTK_MODULES loading
mechanism continues to work for GTK+ apps and that it does not clash
with gnome_program_foo code.
I am dubious because I think that GTK+ apps (i.e. apps that don't use
gnome-program) can use widgets that we need to add support for, so our
extension mechanism probably should not be tied to g-p.
-Bill
> Regards,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
> mmeeks gnu org <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list
> Gnome-accessibility-devel gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]