Re: moniker question

[Joe Shaw <joe ximian com>]

> Yes, but if you don't have gtkhtml installed (or installed but not
> compiled with bonobo-support, therefore without the
> http-storage-module), bonobo-moniker-http is useless. Therefore, I
> think it belongs into gtkhtml. 

Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about the library, rather
than the whole package. Yeah, I would agree that the seperation of the
moniker code and the storage module code is suboptimal, but we didn't want 
to introduce a ghttp dependency on the bonobo module. Because of ebrowser,
a ghttp dependency already existed on the gtkhtml module, so it made more
sense to put it there. Strictly speaking, though, neither
bonobo-moniker-http nor the http storage module belong in gtkhtml OR
bonobo. 

> You see, I could send you the camera-version of bonobo-moniker-http,
> or the ftp-version, or the xxx-version - there wouldn't be any reason
> not to include them in bonobo. In the end, we would have several files
> that differ only by the name of the protocol.

For most of the standard, similar monikers  like http, ftp, etc., I would
agree.

Joe