Re: About GTK+ 3.0 and deprecated things

["Martin Meyer" <elreydetodo gmail com>]

Several people have mentioned the "move the deprecated stuff into a
separate library" idea. Can we get some concrete answers on:

1) Would this satisfy the various apps still using the deprecated
code? i.e. is it OK to depend on this different library in the future
in addition to gtk-3? Are there any arguments against this, aside from
the effort/time involved?

2) Is it entirely possible from a gtk perspective to have all that
code detached from gtk-core and placed in a different library? Are
there any deprecated things that this would *not* work for? Maybe we
can detach as many as possible and leave the rest in place for now.

3) How long / how much effort would it be do to this? Is it something
that has to be done by experienced GTK hackers or can it be handled as
a side project?

Martin

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Paul Davis <paul linuxaudiosystems com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 16:02 +0100, Xan wrote:
>
>> This is exactly what they are doing, that's why they call it GTK+ 3.0,
>> or 2.99.0, or whatever. You are free to keep using and maintaining the
>> 2.x series for as long as you need. Now, if you'd like *others* to
>> spend *their* time doing what *you* would like them to do, well,
>> that's different.
>
> i think the problem is midway between these two. Developers using GTK+
> would like developers of GTK+ to do the new, good stuff that one or
> other or both groups are fired up about. but they'd like it done in a
> way that doesn't negatively affect them.
>
> so the developers of GTK+ have said "we can't do that without dealing
> the public/private issues in the current API", and so we have G_SEAL.
> this provides a transitioning bridge from things-that-should-never-
> have-been-public-but-were to the new world of only-public-things-are
> actually-public. this is fair enough.
>
> i think the problem is one of perception. its not obvious to most
> developers using GTK+ how the public/private stuff really impacts work
> on the things they'd like to see addressed in GTK+. to many of us, its
> not clear why its necessary to move to 3.0 to get substantive stuff
> done. its not that we know we're right, its that we just don't get the
> justification.
>
> a few more specific examples would probably help to clear the air of
> this question. kris gave us one slightly hand-wavy one. can anybody
> offer some more?
>
> as far as deprecated stuff goes, i have to confess that i am in total
> agreement with its (pre-announced) removal.
>
> --p
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
>



-- 
Laurence J. Peter  - "Originality is the fine art of remembering what
you hear but forgetting where you heard it."