Re: gvfs status report

On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:13 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
> On Fri, February 16, 2007 02:45, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> [ about new API names ]
> I'd like to second this -- it's the smart thing to do IMO.
> Other well known APIs (Java, .NET, Win32) use a similar naming
> pattern, and despite it's functional shortcomings, seems to
> be what people prefer.

Oh, I don't know that people _prefer_ it, as such, but people are *used*
to it.

I remember when I first{*Stream} and friends. I had to struggle
for a short while to learn the various constructs involved. But like
everyone else, I got it eventually. And now, like most of the rest of
working with the standard Java libraries, it's just idiomatic.

> And it's usually best to go with the flow for such subjective matters.

I would ordinarily aver to such a statement, as I am squarely in the
camp of not wanting to slavishly copy other environments at the cost of
limiting our freedom to innovate.

In this case, however, I entirely agree with you. A usable pattern is
set, so {shrug}, go with it.

I am, obviously, quite biased about all this, and I accept that, but my
mission in life at the moment is to open our little piece of open source
to new crowds of potential contributors who have, to this point, been
entirely outside of GNOME space. There are zillions of people with Java
expertise, and I'm hoping we can become welcoming to them. While this
should not in any way be the deciding factor in our design choices, if
we can along the way benefit from or integrate with existing experience
bases, then I we will reduce barriers to entry to GTK for GNOME and
that's definitely all to the good.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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