Re: gtk3 replacement for gdk_pixmap_foreign_new

[salsaman <salsaman gmail com>]

Yes you are quite right Richard, I have had this problem numerous
times with gtk over the years. Generally the comment in the
documentation is along the lines of "this function has been deprecated
and should not be used in newly written code". Although actually this
has been getting better recently and there are now some indications as
to what should be used instead.

Regarding the gdk_pixmap/cairo issue:

First the documentation is terrible, all of the links on this page are broken:
http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/3.3/ch25s02.html#id1413352

Secondly, there was another page (I cant find it now) which had
replacement functions for only a subset of the gdk_pixbuf() functions
(making it look like the other functions had simply been dropped
without any thought given to their replacement).

Hence my frustration, which unfortunately came across on this mailing list.

Regards,
Salsaman.



http://lives.sourceforge.net
https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman



On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 08:51, richard boaz <ivor boaz gmail com> wrote:
> (well, my previous comment on documentation aside....)
>
> i have been caught by this in the past as well: that documentation related
> to deprecated functions is woefully lacking.  it is emminently unhelpful to
> simply state "stop using this call".
>
> in all cases, there is a story behind why something has become deprecated,
> except that in most cases, this story goes undocumented, leaving a coder who
> must convert code (always a joy) pretty much on their own in determining:
>
> exactly why it's been deprecated; but even more crucially,
> exactly how to proceed in providing a replacement.  (and given that we're
> talking about from one library to another in this case, even moreso)
>
> IMHO: documentation describing a call as deprecated should, at the very
> least, include a pointer to what replaces it.  and, where possible, the
> back-story/reasoning behind the deprecation in the first place.
>
> and when so documented, no need for pissy postings from any side since no
> posting would ever get generated in the first place.
>
> richard
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 02:54:59PM -0300, salsaman wrote:
>> > Why are you all having problems answering a very simple question ?
>>
>> You've send various emails and started demanding support. If you need
>> support that badly, then it is quite normal to go to a company which can
>> provide such services for you.
>>
>> If you're fine with the normal support, do understand that you're asking
>> it in a period where most developers are simply on vacation. Sending
>> multiple messages in various days is also a bit counterproductive. E.g.,
>> I look at threads without a reply. I often don't look who replied on it.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Olav
>> _______________________________________________
>> gtk-list mailing list
>> gtk-list gnome org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-list mailing list
> gtk-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
>