Re: GNOME & KOM/OP

[Sirtaj Singh Kang <ssk physics unimelb edu au>]

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Phil Dawes wrote:
[snip]
> However, if openparts is as good as people say, which it could very well
> be since the author would have had access to the designs of both OLE and
> opendoc, then we'll have it!

Hi,

Torben is writing openparts as his Masters' thesis project, so he has a
responsibility to keep it well-documented and written.
 
> However, in order for it to be accepted wholesale into the gnome
> community it would really need the following characteristics:
> 
> 1) Written in C.

This is going to be a problem.

> 2) Free of all QT code - it's not standard, and not fair to expect
> gnome-only desktops to require it just for a set of collection classes
> (which we already have in glib). 

All of this is being replaced with STL containers (for better or worse -
The Qt containers are generally more compact and portable but, well,
they're part of Qt)

I think the main sticking point for you guys is going to be the fact that
it uses C++ quite extensively. If you can get around that (not something I
would want to do :) it may save us from yet another "similar but
different" standard API. 

This doesn't address the fact that Miguel seems to have subjective
technical criticisms of the design, but he hasn't mentioned exactly what
they are yet so I assume they are surmountable. 

-Taj.

Sirtaj S. Kang       taj@kde.org         ssk@physics.unimelb.edu.au
School of Physics    Univ of Melbourne   KDE: The Desktop sans Toga