On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 01:47 +0400, Mikhail Zabaluev wrote:
> Hello Joel,
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 07:59:08PM +0100, Joel Becker wrote:
> >
> > Can we, please, somehow avoid reinventing STREAMS and the
> > accompanying performance nightmare? Or, if the benefits of a
> > STREAMS-alike for complex users necessarily penalizes us simple users,
> > can we not deprecate GIOChannel? I'm quite happy with GIOChannel for
> > my simple watches.
>
> I, too, don't think our "complex" thing must deprecate GIOChannel.
> GIOChannel is good for its purposes.
>
Well, the standing policy is that no duplicate functionality goes into
the GNOME platform without deprecating the existing means, so this means
either GIOChannel is deprecated or a IO stream object is simply not
included in the Gnome platform. I'd prefer this not be the case, as the
other modern platforms includes some form stream object (Java, .NET).
Perhaps the plain "IO source watching" functionality could be exposed as
a simple GSource, which is in turn used by the IOstream object. Then
those who merely want source watching can get it without the baggage of
an object, whereas those who want to use a stream object can use one.
Certainly it's a cleaner split code-wise to take this code into it's own
do this.
This is all putting the cart before the horse, though, as we haven't
even settled on a name yet, let alone proved that it should go into
glib...
--
Peace,
Jim Cape
http://ignore-your.tv
"We still name our military helicopter gunships after victims
of genocide. Nobody bats an eyelash about that: Blackhawk.
Apache. And Comanche. If the Luftwaffe named its military
helicopters Jew and Gypsy, I suppose people would notice."
-- Noam Chomsky, "Propaganda and the Public Mind"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part