Re: Question about Glade vs no Glade

[Thierry Vignaud <tvignaud mandrakesoft com>]

Jan Hudec <bulb ucw cz> writes:

> > > As for your second question, I think that using Glade is the
> > > only way to go. Others will disagree with me. But using Glade
> > > means that you've got more time for actual coding, and also that
> > > modifications are much easier - especially when you're building
> > > complicated forms, and *especially* if someone else has to
> > > modify your creation.
> >
> > maybe do one save some time when prototyping a GUI, but when you'd
> > to change sg, you'll have to change it everywhere whereas with
> > real code, you can factorize common stuff (compare with HTML+CSS
> > or LaTeX against HTML as found in most web pages)
> >
> > thus you eventually loose time while maintaining your application
> > and it may be error prone (eg: one forget to update a place).
>
> Yes, it might be a problem, sometimes. The key to this is full use
> of possibilities glade allows. I especialy mean binding signal
> handlers and also custom naming of widgets. That way layout changes
> don't need to touch perl code and functionality changes do not need
> to touch the glade file (no, I never use the default handler names
> -- the handler name should be derived from what it does and not what
> widget it is bound to).

you still have to change layout everywhere when eg you switch from old
frame to new HIG blocks with bold title and left border in the logical
block.

in perl, you could have a function create_block(@widgets) that create
either a frame or vbox with a bold title at top: when following new
HIG releases, you would only have to look at one place whereas with
glade files, you've to manually alter all dialogs in all xml files