Re: [g-a-devel] pyatspi addition

[Willie Walker <William Walker Sun COM>]

Hi Daniel:

> Am Dienstag, den 12.06.2007, 07:42 -0400 schrieb Willie Walker:
> > http://live.gnome.org/GAP/PythonATSPI gives more information on these
> > bindings.  A big difference between pyatspi and pyspi is that pyspi
> > requires the AT-SPI cspi layer (potentially to be deprecated) whereas
> > pyatspi doesn't.  
> 
> that answers some questions, given that (according to the Wiki page)
> existing applications are planned to transition to pyatspi.

Yeah - having unified Python bindings that everyone uses, and having
them work with Python facilities directly rather than requiring the
AT-SPI cspi bindings is a good thing.  Plus, these two items were key
for me:

* To hide the CORBA-isms of accessing AT-SPI through pyORBit 
* To minimize churn if/when the AT-SPI transport layer is changed

> Now I wonder how I should call the package. python-pyatspi maybe (as
> python-at-spi has been taken already by pyspi).

Ha!  Yeah, needing to use pyatspi was unfortunate, but all other names
under the sun seemed to be taken by various projects.

> Any suggestions?

I say sticking with something that matches given patterns and names
might be a good thing.  How about just pyatspi?  Maybe just including it
with libatspi and not making it a separate package would be another
alternative?

Will