Re: GtkPacker removal

[Shawn T Amundson <amundson eventloop com>]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 02:40:35PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> The trouble is that the packer really isn't different from GtkHBox and
> GtkVBox - the only useful packing layouts are horizontal or vertical
> boxes.
> 
> And in general, it doens't make sense to have multiple widgets to do
> the same thing. People want to be told what to use in a clear
> fashion. We need to have consistent recommendations.  Not "we usually
> use Gtk[HV]Box, but if you want, you could use GtkPacker instead. It
> does about the same thing".
> 
> (AFAIK, the only really things that are more powerful about the packer
> in practice are the internal and external padding; and external
> padding is handled in GTK+ with GtkAlignment.)
> 

The packer has a much more "advanced" packing algorithm.  Not
only does it handle internal/external padding easier, but also
allows different fill/expand without using a ton of container
widgets.  In a GUI builder, this is powerful.  

If the child attributes needed by GtkPacker were integrated into 
GtkWidget, the API in C would even be easier in many cases than 
managing the massive amount of container widgets that is necessary
with GTK+ now.

I'm really fairly indifferent.  I believe that the packer is 
superior overall, but it's obvious that no one uses it and adding 
the support necessary to GTK+ to make it useful is too radical of 
a change.  So, if Tk-like packing support in GUI builders isn't
a good enough reason, then by all means clear the cruft.

-Shawn

--
Shawn T. Amundson                       amundson eventloop com	
Research and Development                http://www.eventloop.com/
EventLoop, Inc.                         (651) 999-0130

"The assumption that the universe looks the same in every
 direction is clearly not true in reality." - Stephen Hawking