Re: Branch for 2.30?
- From: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
- To: Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com>
- Cc: Thomas Wood <thos gnome org>, Control Center List <gnomecc-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Branch for 2.30?
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 12:17:39 +0100
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 07:15 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 11:23 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 09:05 +0100, Thomas Wood wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 23:58 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > FWIW, I still didn't get an answer on what to do for:
> >> > > - external capplets (no way to merge those into control-center,
> >> > > realistically)
> >> >
> >> > There is a new library, libgnome-control-center-extension, which can be
> >> > used to implement a panel. I do want to revise the API here and change
> >> > anything that doesn't make sense.
> >> >
> >> > > - external capplets that aren't written in C
> >> >
> >> > I don't really have an answer here. If it's really important that we
> >> > support non-C settings panels, then we will need to look at switching to
> >> > a different extension approach, such as libpees.
> >> >
> >> can't we have introspection for libgnome-control-center-extension so
> >> that capplets not written in C can use the bindings?
> > That's no use if the non-C GIO extension points aren't getting loaded.
> > You'd need Python/Vala/whatever support in the control-center. Did we
> > really mean to go down that route?
> I don't think 'you can exend our control-center in any language of the
> world' is a super-compelling feature.
Fair enough. But we'll want to communicate this load and clear to people
who do write those third-party capplets.
> It only encourages the 'one
> capplet per app' approach that we want to get away from. But vala
> should be just fine.
Of course, as it's gob2++ ;)
] [Thread Prev