RE: Tests, demos, and all that

On 13-Jun-2000 Owen Taylor wrote:
>  - testgtk badly needs to be split into multiple files and cleaned
>    up. Right up testgtk mostly is a 'demo' but has various tests
>    embedded in it that don't really fit this model and actually
> look
>    like bugs.
>    ("Foo" handlebox in the handlebox test, "Reparent Out" button in
>    scrolled window test, etc.)
>    I'd like to see testgtk cleaned up and made into a nice demo of
>    GTK+. We should replace the buttons with a tree or list, (a
>    GtkTLView test...), and add descriptions for each test.
>    The Tk widget demo feature where each test has a button to show
> the
>    source code is nice too, and shouldn't be hard to implement if
> we
>    break up testgtk into one file per test.

It would seem sensible (to me at least) to "merge" testgtk and the
examples/* code. As most of the examples/* code is derived from
testgtk anyway. I don't believe that would interfere with your other
ideas. The only down side is that the code is likely to be more
comprehensive (and complicated) than is required for the Tutorial
(the examples/* code are the tutorial demos) but I don't think that
will lead to any major problems.

>  - The examples/ directory doesn't get built as part of the build
>    process and has ad-hoc Makefile's instead of automake.
>    I guess the intention of the makefiles in there is that they can
> be
>    copied out somewhere else and used without modification.
>    But I don't think that advantage outweighs the more substantial
>    advantages of having the examples controlled by a
>    - We make sure that they continue to build
>    - The programs can be tried out in place without installing
>      GTK+.
>    If we changed over the build process for the examples, we
> probably
>    should flatten the directory structure. From past experience
>    (with the GIMP expecially), having a large number of
>    can make the build process really crawl.

There are a couple of issues here. Those makefiles were added because
they weren't there and I got fed up with hand compiling them.

I think would be overkill for these examples. All the
makefiles are extremely simple and I've never had a report of any
problems with them across platforms.

Flattening the directory structure to artificially add automake
support would be a lose, IMHO. It just doesn't seem to be required.
There may be a requirement to (yes, thats what I meant)
the top-level examples makefile, but I'm not sure.


People in general do not willingly read if they have anything else to
amuse them.
		-- S. Johnson

Go Bezerk!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]