Re: GtkApplication and argc/arv

On 2011-03-08 at 22:16, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Andrew Cowie
> <andrew operationaldynamics com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 12:06 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> >> I would very much like some reasoning to point people at when I tell
> >> them to use GtkApplication. I will not just hand-wave and say that
> >> people say it's good.
> >
> > GtkApplication is the GNOME 3.0 replacement for LibUnique, right? If so,
> > then fine; the developer can choose whether the single instance pattern
> > is appropriate for their application as before.
> this is part of the problem here. GtkApplication was originally
> floated as something a bit different than "just" what libunique did.
> it increasingly feels as if it has morphed into nothing but a
> repalcement for it. this may or may not be true, but that's certainly
> the impression that discussions about it are creating.

no, GtkApplication isn't being "morphed" into libunique replacement -
and I can say so as the maintainer of libunique.

it just so happens that, for the desktop that is currently being
targeted on the X11/Linux platform (i.e. GNOME 3), the default approach
for applications is strongly adviced to be the single-instance one[0].

then there are the actions, for remote control; the "application as a
service" implementation; the startup notification control; the window ↔
application relationship; the main loop control tied to the
application's lifetime; etc.

as usual, if developers for other platforms want to be represented, they
have to show up.


[0] *strongly adviced* doesn't mean "you can't do anything else, or else
  you'll receive a visit from a guy named Ramone and a 2-by-4"; it means
  that you should probably follow the advice to get the best experience
  possible on that particular platform.


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