Re: Bonobo dependencies ...

[Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com>]

Hi again Maciej,

On 1 Dec 2000, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Actually, this does sound political to me. You are saying you don't
> want to depend on a library because it's API is C rather than
> IDL. Because of the way it is currently implemented, not only do you
> not want to encourage users to use it directly, but you won't even
> use it in your own code where technically appropriate because it is
> `evil' and must be `deprecated'.

	But wait; perhaps you have forgotten, who was it that added
the dependency again, and argued for it, and did the work fixing the
problems in the VFS stream / storage modules ? Me ? I think so.

	Also; I take a pragmatic view, I'm happy to explain what I
think is bad about everything if I have time [the list is quite long]
the gnome-print dependency is vital for compound document support.
The gnome-vfs -> bonobo dependency is a totaly different issue, this
could easily work both ways round with little pain at this stage, so I
do not see these issues as being equivalent in any way.

> Interestingly however, this logic applies only to gnome-vfs but not
> to, e.g., gnome-print or gdk-pixbuf. I guess the functionality
> provided by those doesn't need to be scriptable?

	No one asked me for my opinion on what is best to do with the
gnome-print API and CORBA :-) I didn't see it as being extremely
relevant to a discussion of whether to put a Vfs storage module in
gnome-vfs or bonobo.

	Simply because I happen to think the gnome-vfs API is broken
wrt. scripting what makes you think I love the gnome-print API ? these
issues appear totaly disparate to me.

	I do agree, that these too need far better CORBA support; then
again the CORBA support for scripting needs to be improved too.

> Or maybe you just wrapped their low-level functionality with a
> higher-level IDL interface. I wonder if that could be done for
> gnome-vfs. Oh wait - it already has been.

	Look; I really have very little patience with this conspiriacy
theory view of the world, unfortunately these seem to be self
re-inforcing.

	As for the Gtk+, GdkPixbuf etc. APIs, I see little point in
wrapping them in IDL, since they are already well supported by pretty
much every language you can think of. I agree gnome-print will need
plenty of loving, what makes you think I want otherwise ?

> >         Big C APIs are a disaster area.
>  
> And yet you don't seem opposed to adding functions to libbonobo that
> are usable only from the C API and not reflected in the IDL...

	This is a big mistake [ adding C functions not accessible from
IDL ], I'll be the first to admit that, however there are issues with
how easy it is to fix these mistakes in the current time frame; of
course, I am doing my best, and beggining to get assistance. Really to
nail them all you need to have scripting bindings already.

	Splurge,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot