RE: [gtkmm] Questions and information

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> From: Andrew [mailto:andrea sansottera fastwebnet it]  
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Gtk+ API is good and Gtkmm API is, too. It's enough for developers!
> 
> I think that the value of a toolkit like Gtk+ resides in it's 
> implementation... it's what users "taste". Mantainers should 
> concentrate on 
> it till Gtk+ 3.0 development will be started.
> 
> The value of a wrapper like Gtkmm resides in it's ability of 
> following closely 
> the development of the underlaying libraries. As I said, 
> gtkmm API is good, 
> and it has to be broken only when Gtk+ API change. Gtkmm 2.4 
> should only add 
> API functions which wrap new Gtk+ 2.4 API functions.

What about
- API/ABI that we need to fix in gtkmm. e.g. the ComboBox STL-style list is
broken in gtkmm 2.2, but not in gtkmm 2.4
- General improvements to our C++ API. e.g. 
  - removing the useless key-binding signals.
  - using C++ types instead of C types in Drag and Drop.

Why wait for these? You say that you don't want more development to happen
because the idea of being perfectly in-sync with GTK+ pleases you, but other
people will say that they want bugs fixed and the API improved. Having a
stable and an unstable branch allows us to please everyone without forcing
anybody to do anything. If nobody can suggest a practical problem with this
plan to please everyone then we have to assume that it is in fact pleasing
everyone as much as possible.

> It would 
> be nice if 
> gnomemm 2 will be released in a short time... 

I guess you mean a stable libgnomeuimm 2.0. If anybody really needs this to
be stable then, as I have said several times, we can remove the
libbonobo**mm stuff and freeze it. If you want it to be complete, with the
bonobo stuff, then you have to help.


> A lot of application written for 
> Gtk+1.2 has not yet 
> been ported to Gtk+2.0... it seems to be much more harder 
> than porting Qt 2 
> applications to Qt 3. (I have never used neither Gtk+1.2 nor 
> Qt 2/3..

Again, what does the 1.2 -> 2.0 change have to do with this?

> I hope 
> that it will be 
> the same for Gtkmm 2 and Gtkmm 3.

Yes, again.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com